KONG: SKULL ISLAND should've been at least 1/2 hour shorter and its ending should've been less abrupt, but it has enough thrilling moments (action sequences and conversations). It's the rare blockbuster that keeps a serious tone while using colors that stand out (only comedies tend to do that). Therefore, while it's not the best installment of the franchise, it's the most beautiful one. Speaking of, it makes the same mistake KING KONG 1933 made: It spends too much time showing the title character as a monster that, by the time he shows compasion for the humans, it's hard to buy. Not that he would want to do something kind, but that he would be capable of doing something kind. He's shown as a beast who acts on instinct but can't think. The original movie (as well as the 1976 and 2005 versions) showed him as the victim. That doesn't happen here, so the movie's emotional factor is lower than the point that has already been reached in the past. That makes it automatically inferior. On the other hand, it was necessary to keep the consistency of this new universe (it has to be a more traditional monster movie like GODZILLA 2014). COLE (one of the main characters) tries to sacrifice himself to save the others by holding grenades while a monster approaches him. The monster attacks him with its tail, he flies off and blows up. It was such a great way to subvert a trope and throw an emotional punch to the viewer's stomach that, as I'm writing this, my jaw is still on the floor. Is the post-credits scene a clever tie-in or pointless fan service? I don't know, but the way GODZILLA's roar was used gave me goosebumps!
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Sept 18, 2017 7:24:12 GMT
The original did not show him as an unthinking monster. Cooper and co. spent a lot of time with animals and had made the Most Dangerous Game (about a hunter who comes to realize he shouldnt hunt animals). Kong was independent--mischievous, aggressive--not just a monster or a victim.
I think some of the people chewing and train smashing was the filmmakers having fun with the technology but Kong is only showing compassion to Ann who he may regard as a pretty object or pet to protect--not a love interest.
The only real clumsy bit might be how Denham is portrayed. He is the same jovial self at the end--when he could well be attacked by a mob for what he had done--not sure he would want to show his face in public at that moment.
This was addressed in the rushed into production sequel where he spends much of the movie feeling depressed and remorseful (Robert Armstrong preferred the performance in Son of Kong--it's a much better film than it gets credit for--thoughtful script).
From this time on, Denham becomes the villain--in the radio version of the late 30s, Denham is an all out bad guy.
Caligula: Do you think I'm mad?...Sometimes I think that I'm going mad. Do you — be honest with me — has that thought ever crossed your mind?
Claudius: Never. Never. The idea is preposterous. You set the standard of sanity for the whole world.