ReelBob: ‘Godzilla vs. Kong’ ★★½

The actors are simply props; it's the clashes of these titans that keep this messy movie afloat.

Something is off with “Godzilla vs. Kong.” It’s a movie I should have enjoyed, yet, at 113 minutes, I found myself restless — even bored — at times.

Make no mistake about it, the two titans are the stars of the movie. But they seem to be playing second fiddle to a group of cardboard, cliched and one-dimensional human characters who — with one major exception — do nothing but spout exclamations and expositions.

These actors are wearisome props who merely divert us from what we really want to see — Godzilla and Kong beating the crap out of each other.

Compounding that problem is a meandering storyline and formulaic plot that includes such standard bogeymen as a nefarious corporation, its megalomaniac leader, a hidden agenda, and a subplot inspired by the writings of Jules Verne and Edgar Rice Burroughs.

The movie’s tone is uneven; Kong’s story is more sentimental and deals with returning the big ape to his ancestral home in the Hollow Earth. It is a more traditional, Japanese-inspired Toho scenario. It is a bit mindless and has a goofy charm of its own.

The Godzilla arc is dark, as well as being too self-aware of what it expects you to want and appreciate.

In the Godzilla narrative, Demián Bichir plays Walter Simmons, head of the disreputable Apex Corporation, which reawakens and provokes Godzilla’s aggressive tendencies. Bichir was very good in the recent feature “Land,” but here he seems to be sleepwalking throughout.

The actors in the Kong sequences, with the exception of young Kaylee Hottle as Jia, a deaf girl from Skull Island adopted by scientist and Kong keeper Ilene Andrews (Rebecca Hall), are mostly nondescript.

Hottle’s Jia, who has a connection and can communicate with Kong, is the only human worth caring about.

The rest are so thinly drawn that their fates are of no interest.

The main reason to watch “Godzilla vs. Kong,” of course is to view the clash of these titans. The film contains two well-staged CGI battles — the first at sea, in which a fleet of ships is destroyed, and the second that nearly levels Hong Kong.

Personally, I consider it piling on, after all the turmoil and protests that it has been through in the past year or two.

The true stars of the movie are the hundreds of technicians who give life to Godzilla and Kong.

In 1963’s “King Kong vs. Godzilla,” it was fun watching two men in rubber monster suits sumo-wrestling on a studio set, hurling fake boulders, tumbling around and punching and kicking each other.

In this film, Kong’s hide shimmers, he’s bloodied, and his shoulder is dislocated; Godzilla doesn’t fare any better. His skin is molted and scarred.

Both beasties are technologically impressive, which also works against them. You do not have a sense of terror or are even awe-struck by their presence.

In the end, though, the two must put aside their battle to determine which is the alpha male, so they can fight a common threat that could destroy both of them.

This leaves open the possibility of still another sequel. The question is, do we really need one?

“Godzilla vs. Kong” lacks charm and wonderment. It is visually exciting but emotionally barren.

I am a founding member of the Indiana Film Journalists Association. I review movies, 4K UHD, Blu-rays and DVDs for ReelBob (ReelBob.com), The Film Yap and other print and online publications. I can be reached by email at bobbloomjc@gmail.com. You also can follow me on Twitter @ReelBobBloom and on Facebook at ReelBob.com or the Indiana Film Journalists Association. My movie reviews also can be found at Rotten Tomatoes: www.rottentomatoes.com.

GODZILLA VS. KONG
2½ stars out of 4
(PG-13), intense creature violence and destruction, language