'Godzilla: King of the Monsters'—Critics vs The Fans

Godzilla: King of the Monsters is now in theaters, and I have not yet seen this movie. I have just heard a lot of people talking about this movie, and given how ignorant I am about the world, and the legacy of Godzilla, I am just sitting on top of a hill, watching an active battlefield beneath me.

What the hell does that mean? Well, basically, King of the Monsters is the newest movie to drive a big-ass wedge between audiences and critics. While audiences dig the incredible monster-on-monster violence in this film, critics have criticized it for its lack of story and character development.

Now, like I said, I haven't seen this movie. I've just been watching and reading a ton of reviews of the film from online critics, and reading a lot of angry comments on Facebook, so I decided to give my two cents on why critics and audiences are once again divided on the quality of a film.

Okay, so this is what I've been hearing: Gareth Edwards's 2014 Godzilla film was disappointing to critics and fans alike for teasing Godzilla too much, and simply not showing the giant lizard on screen enough.

And now, we have King of the Monsters, and from what I've heard, this movie doubles down on the monster action, giving us many scenes of Godzilla fighting and smashing things.

But critics have found issue with this film, because of its poor script. I've heard many film critics say that this movie has very boring, uninteresting characters, and a bland story that only serves to have grand, high-scale battles with Godzilla—and a staggering amount of plot holes doesn't help.

That's what a majority of critics are saying. But I've seen many audience members say that they couldn't care less about the lack of human drama in this film, and that they go to Godzilla films to watch Godzilla fight and break things, not to watch humans talk about Godzilla.

So this raises the question: how should a critic judge a Godzilla film? I haven't seen this yet, but to me, it sounds like a big action blockbuster that doesn't take itself too seriously. This movie seems to be a popcorn movie, so how should critics judge a popcorn movie?

Speaking as a film critic, I know that critics tend to be very analytical when it comes to films. We mull over details, judging everything that the film does right, and criticizing what it does wrong.

Audiences tend to see films very differently from critics. Most audience members simply want to be entertained, while most critics tend to focus more on the technical aspects and accomplishments of a film, rather than appreciating a film for its value as a popcorn film.

Now, to clarify, when I say "popcorn movie," I'm talking about movies that aren't exactly Oscar-worthy films in terms of their stories, but are instead just mindless entertainment. And at the end of the day, film critics should not be judging King of the Monsters the way they judge The Godfather.

When you have a serious movie like The Shape of Water or Moonlight, that's a movie where I put on my pretentious critical lenses, and examine it. But if you have a summer blockbuster like Jurassic World or King of the Monsters, I can't really criticize it for not having the qualities that Moonlight had.

I think film reviews shouldn't just be a platform where a critic gives their opinion on what they thought of a movie. It should be a tool for critics to set expectations for audiences. Because the entire point of a review is to let audiences know if they'll like a film.

Now, obviously, that shouldn't be ALL that reviews are. Sometimes, it's important to give a positive review to a film no matter what audiences will think. But I feel like critics should always keep audiences in mind when writing their reviews.

Once again, I have not seen this film, or ANY Godzilla film, as a matter of fact, but I know the basics, and I hear critics talking about how this film needs more character development. And honestly, I tend to get bothered when films don't have good character development.

But does a Godzilla film need character development? I mean, Harry Potter needed to develop the character of Harry Potter. Batman Begins needed to develop the character of Batman. And when you have a movie about GODZILLA, do you need a lot of human character development?

People don't watch Godzilla movies for the human characters. People don't want to see a Godzilla film where we have a troubled main protagonist who was abused as a child, and whose wife is battling leukemia. If you have a film like Godzilla, audiences will only care about Godzilla.

It's perfectly fine to bring up the issue of character development in a review of King of the Monsters, but I don't agree with giving this film a negative review solely because there's little character development, because audiences couldn't give two shits about it.

The point I'm trying to make is that when a critic writes a review, it should be a mixture of what THEY thought, and what the audience will think. If I give a movie a positive review, I'm suggesting audiences will probably like it.

However, if I give a movie a negative review, I'm suggesting audiences will not like it. Therefore, regardless of the poor aspects of a film like King of the Monsters, if I were to watch it, and feel like audiences would love it, I'm not gonna give it a negative review because that's not what most audience members would do in my shoes.

Anyways, those are just a few thoughts that I had on this idea. If you like King of the Monsters, great. If you hate King of the Monsters, great. I just wanted to analyze what I was watching between audiences and critics, because this little rift has been more entertaining than anything the actual movie could provide.

But that's it for now. Thank you so much for reading.