|
Post by Times Up on Mar 14, 2017 22:02:17 GMT
Better or worse than 1933, 76, 05? Worth seeing in theater? I haven't seen 33 or 05, but its much different from 76. Hard to compare really. If you like special effects, and creature features, it's for you, and DEFINITELY on the big screen. If you are looking for a think piece and a lot of character development, skip it. IMAX or regular? Hows the sound in the film?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2017 22:12:53 GMT
I haven't seen 33 or 05, but its much different from 76. Hard to compare really. If you like special effects, and creature features, it's for you, and DEFINITELY on the big screen. If you are looking for a think piece and a lot of character development, skip it. IMAX or regular? Hows the sound in the film? Sound was okay. The score is nothing noteworthy, but the animals sound real. I think the effects are worth IMAX. It is really the forefront of where we are with CGI animation. The only low point in the film for me was Tom Hiddleston's hair.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2017 23:38:28 GMT
Better or worse than 1933, 76, 05? Worth seeing in theater? It's very hard to compare them, really. The 33 movie is a whole other animal, it has that classic status and was totally groundbreaking when it came out. No subsequent Kong movie will ever be that iconic. The 76 movie is good in parts, but it's just so goofy that I can only watch it if I'm in the right mood. The "obvious man in suit" and "obvious robot hand" really hurt the movie for me, as does Jessica Lange's "I'm an idiot" and Charles Grodin's "I'm an insensitive jerk and also stupid" characters. Jeff Bridges goes a long way towards rescuing it, though. That guy is excellent in everything I've ever seen him in. Jackson's Kong could have been perfect, IMO, but it's a little too self indulgent for me. He spends forever getting to anything! The movie needs to be about 30 minutes longer. The modern Kong is king of formulaic, and it's just one of many monster movies designed to fit in with others in a great big franchise, all with the aim of sucking several billion dollars out of the public purse. But for all that it's competent, even well done. The actors are all pretty good, the story is serviceable, and there's a lot of good monster action to be had.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2017 0:24:29 GMT
Um, 30 minutes shorter!
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Mar 15, 2017 3:10:27 GMT
Just got out of the theater two hours ago. What a fucking blast! 8/10 for me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2017 10:12:56 GMT
Just got out of the theater two hours ago. What a fucking blast! 8/10 for me. I'm already anticipating the sequel, and I hope they keep it at Skull Island.
|
|
ashverses
Sophomore
@ashverses
Posts: 572
Likes: 119
|
Post by ashverses on Mar 15, 2017 12:52:32 GMT
After sleeping on it and thinking about it, the characters were very weak with the exception of Kong and maybe John C Reily. I'm a bit disappointed in the producers getting actors like Brie Larson and John Goodman, etc and giving lines like "I'm an anti-war journalist." Just a very weak screenplay. I had fun at the theater with it, but it is not even going to smell my top ten by the end of the year. Guess I'm just trying to say that I was disappointed in it a bit. After all the reviews I heard, I expected it to be better.
Kong himself rocked though. World building was great, wish we could have focused on the island more than the many characters we had to fumble through.
|
|
|
Post by kuatorises on Mar 15, 2017 16:56:16 GMT
After sleeping on it and thinking about it, the characters were very weak with the exception of Kong and maybe John C Reily. I'm a bit disappointed in the producers getting actors like Brie Larson and John Goodman, etc and giving lines like "I'm an anti-war journalist." Just a very weak screenplay. I had fun at the theater with it, but it is not even going to smell my top ten by the end of the year. Guess I'm just trying to say that I was disappointed in it a bit. After all the reviews I heard, I expected it to be better. Kong himself rocked though. World building was great, wish we could have focused on the island more than the many characters we had to fumble through.I think it is a double-edged sword and ironically you proved why in your comment. In movies like this, the characters are either weak or people get annoyed that so much time is spent on them. Funny enough, you did both in the same post. I'm not sure there's really a way to win in this situation and please everyone (most people).
|
|
ashverses
Sophomore
@ashverses
Posts: 572
Likes: 119
|
Post by ashverses on Mar 15, 2017 17:50:33 GMT
After sleeping on it and thinking about it, the characters were very weak with the exception of Kong and maybe John C Reily. I'm a bit disappointed in the producers getting actors like Brie Larson and John Goodman, etc and giving lines like "I'm an anti-war journalist." Just a very weak screenplay. I had fun at the theater with it, but it is not even going to smell my top ten by the end of the year. Guess I'm just trying to say that I was disappointed in it a bit. After all the reviews I heard, I expected it to be better. Kong himself rocked though. World building was great, wish we could have focused on the island more than the many characters we had to fumble through.I think it is a double-edged sword and ironically you proved why in your comment. In movies like this, the characters are either weak or people get annoyed that so much time is spent on them. Funny enough, you did both in the same post. I'm not sure there's really a way to win in this situation and please everyone (most people). I guess I wasn't as clear as I should have been in my previous post. I do believe two or three meaningful characters would have been best, with the world building and of course Kong. How many military, scientist, and Monarch guys (red shirts) did we spend time with that ended up contributed nothing to the plot. They wasted Brie Larson, John Goodman, maybe Hiddleson, etc. For what they did with these characters, they didn't need these big stars/Oscar winners/Oscar nomonees. Brie Larson's character didn't need to be there except Kong needs to have a "moment" between himself and a pretty woman. Only reason why she was there. Her character was written horribly. The movie was successful in what it had to be successful in, and that's Kong. I just wish they had done better with the plot/screenplay. It was enjoyable, just not memorable.
|
|
|
Post by kuatorises on Mar 15, 2017 19:09:33 GMT
I think it is a double-edged sword and ironically you proved why in your comment. In movies like this, the characters are either weak or people get annoyed that so much time is spent on them. Funny enough, you did both in the same post. I'm not sure there's really a way to win in this situation and please everyone (most people). I guess I wasn't as clear as I should have been in my previous post. I do believe two or three meaningful characters would have been best, with the world building and of course Kong. How many military, scientist, and Monarch guys (red shirts) did we spend time with that ended up contributed nothing to the plot. They wasted Brie Larson, John Goodman, maybe Hiddleson, etc. For what they did with these characters, they didn't need these big stars/Oscar winners/Oscar nomonees. Brie Larson's character didn't need to be there except Kong needs to have a "moment" between himself and a pretty woman. Only reason why she was there. Her character was written horribly. The movie was successful in what it had to be successful in, and that's Kong. I just wish they had done better with the plot/screenplay. It was enjoyable, just not memorable. You were clear, I just don't know how much developing the human characters would help the movie. I think one of the big complaints about Godzilla was that there was too much time spent on Elizabeth Olsen and Aaron Taylor Johnson – and people found them boring to boot. I do agree with you that there wasn't much there character wise, I'm just not sure what they could do about it in a movie like this.
|
|
ashverses
Sophomore
@ashverses
Posts: 572
Likes: 119
|
Post by ashverses on Mar 15, 2017 21:27:24 GMT
I guess I wasn't as clear as I should have been in my previous post. I do believe two or three meaningful characters would have been best, with the world building and of course Kong. How many military, scientist, and Monarch guys (red shirts) did we spend time with that ended up contributed nothing to the plot. They wasted Brie Larson, John Goodman, maybe Hiddleson, etc. For what they did with these characters, they didn't need these big stars/Oscar winners/Oscar nomonees. Brie Larson's character didn't need to be there except Kong needs to have a "moment" between himself and a pretty woman. Only reason why she was there. Her character was written horribly. The movie was successful in what it had to be successful in, and that's Kong. I just wish they had done better with the plot/screenplay. It was enjoyable, just not memorable. You were clear, I just don't know how much developing the human characters would help the movie. I think one of the big complaints about Godzilla was that there was too much time spent on Elizabeth Olsen and Aaron Taylor Johnson – and people found them boring to boot. I do agree with you that there wasn't much there character wise, I'm just not sure what they could do about it in a movie like this. I think it comes back to screenplay. Maybe I'm expecting too much from a Kong movie. It just was a popcorn flick to me. Very enjoyable at the theater but easily forgotten afterward.
|
|
|
Post by Pangolin on Mar 15, 2017 22:09:52 GMT
How creepy is the big spider? (or are there more this kind in the movie?)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2017 22:24:16 GMT
You were clear, I just don't know how much developing the human characters would help the movie. I think one of the big complaints about Godzilla was that there was too much time spent on Elizabeth Olsen and Aaron Taylor Johnson – and people found them boring to boot. I do agree with you that there wasn't much there character wise, I'm just not sure what they could do about it in a movie like this. I think it comes back to screenplay. Maybe I'm expecting too much from a Kong movie. It just was a popcorn flick to me. Very enjoyable at the theater but easily forgotten afterward. It's definitely a film for the big screen. Gravity was the same way to me. The difference is I'm one of those weird animal people, so I may end up watching Kong again if it come to Netflix, because I loved all the giant animals. I probably wouldn't watch Gravity on the small screen.
|
|
|
Post by SinisterCreep on Mar 15, 2017 22:26:09 GMT
Of course everyone wants films made as good as possible but I find when film makers etc talk about 'character' development and plot in films and tv [especially sci fi] it often ends up with annoying ott characters and an over complicated plot.
new Dr Who's typical of this. the original show had it's bad moments but it was much easier to understand than the new show and most of the characters were better too without the writers trying too hard [like the new writers do]. and agree about Godzilla. I liked the new film but the characters were quite bland. and it's usually some young family who have everything that's at peril. Most people don't feel sorry for people who have everything in life [most people are envious of them]. thankfully this new Kong film is centred on soldiers and scientists by the sounds of it rather than the happy family at peril routine.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2017 22:27:40 GMT
How creepy is the big spider? (or are there more this kind in the movie?) The spider's not that big a deal in the movie. If you want to know details... The see it above them like in the trailer, then it starts stabbing at them with its legs. They get machetes out and start chopping legs off. It grabs one guy with a tendril-like thing and hoists him up, but they get enough legs off and shoot it enough that it collapses and then dies. I didn't find it that creepy myself.
|
|
ashverses
Sophomore
@ashverses
Posts: 572
Likes: 119
|
Post by ashverses on Mar 16, 2017 13:11:12 GMT
I think it comes back to screenplay. Maybe I'm expecting too much from a Kong movie. It just was a popcorn flick to me. Very enjoyable at the theater but easily forgotten afterward. It's definitely a film for the big screen. Gravity was the same way to me. The difference is I'm one of those weird animal people, so I may end up watching Kong again if it come to Netflix, because I loved all the giant animals. I probably wouldn't watch Gravity on the small screen. Exactly. I liked Gravity when I saw it in IMAX. I had a good time at the theater, but I will never see it again because I know the story was not great. Jurassic World is kind of the same. These type of movies are great in the theater. I've had a few opportunities to rewatch JW and Gravity at home and passed because I have no desire to revisit these films again.
|
|
|
Post by taylorfirst1 on Mar 16, 2017 14:25:11 GMT
I agree with this 100%. Very well said. I can't add anything.
|
|
|
Post by captainchrisredfield on Mar 16, 2017 19:51:36 GMT
The movie was great fun. 8/10 for me. The effects and camera work was pretty good, some shots looked really good. You get what you'd expect: Lots of action and monster fights.
The only downsides were, that I think there were too many unecessary characters (chinese lady for example) and one character died way too soon and meaningless. Also, I wasn't a fan of how the movie was cut, it sometimes felt strange and unfitting.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2017 21:04:50 GMT
Am I really the only one bothered by Hiddleston's perfect, unmoving hair?!
|
|
|
Post by SinisterCreep on Mar 17, 2017 3:06:20 GMT
I agree with this 100%. Very well said. I can't add anything. Thanks!
|
|