|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Dec 8, 2019 12:55:52 GMT
6.5 is a good movie in my book.
I enjoyed it for what it was and was not expecting it to be more than that.
The ending, as with most movies, was a bloated effects filled mess, but I thought the same thing with the Marvel movies.
|
|
|
|
Post by gspdude on Dec 8, 2019 13:59:23 GMT
I enjoyed it. John Reilly was the best part of this film.
Yeah, I liked him as well.
He was Very Good in it.
Agreed, And it's tough not to be upstaged by Jackson and Goodman.
|
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on Dec 8, 2019 17:03:03 GMT
I enjoyed it. John Reilly was the best part of this film. I agree. His role and performance was the least cliche, and most fresh of the film. |
|
|
|
Post by anthonyrocks on Dec 8, 2019 17:32:42 GMT
I enjoyed it. John Reilly was the best part of this film. I agree. His role and performance was the least cliche, and most fresh of the film. Agreed!
|
|
|
|
Post by THawk on Dec 8, 2019 17:40:43 GMT
Yeah 6/10 at best. Some cool scenes and effects, but there is a recurrent problem in all giant monster movies lately, especially Godzilla: They always try to make the monsters as good guys friendly to the Hollywood leads. Start out 'scary' but end up as giant pets basically. Completely idiotic in my view.
|
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on Dec 8, 2019 17:43:46 GMT
Yeah 6/10 at best. Some cool scenes and effects, but there is a recurrent problem in all giant monster movies lately, especially Godzilla: They always try to make the monsters as good guys friendly to the Hollywood leads. Start out 'scary' but end up as giant pets basically. Completely idiotic in my view. Formula, formula, formula . . . no creativity or imagination. |
|
|
|
Post by anthonyrocks on Dec 8, 2019 17:45:05 GMT
Yeah 6/10 at best. Some cool scenes and effects, but there is a recurrent problem in all giant monster movies lately, especially Godzilla: They always try to make the monsters as good guys friendly to the Hollywood leads. Start out 'scary' but end up as giant pets basically. Completely idiotic in my view.
What did you think of Samuel L. Jackson's Performance as the Main 'Human' Villain in the Movie if you don't mind me asking ?
|
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on Dec 8, 2019 18:05:36 GMT
Yeah 6/10 at best. Some cool scenes and effects, but there is a recurrent problem in all giant monster movies lately, especially Godzilla: They always try to make the monsters as good guys friendly to the Hollywood leads. Start out 'scary' but end up as giant pets basically. Completely idiotic in my view. What did you think of Samuel L. Jackson's Performance as the Main 'Human' Villain in the Movie if you don't mind me asking ?
Even though you are not asking me, I want to give my opinion. I thought his performance and role was cliche and stupid. It seemed like every other Samuel L Jackson performance. And only a liberal director would portray a career military man as so stupid, one dimensional and self-destructive. |
|
|
|
Post by anthonyrocks on Dec 8, 2019 18:56:53 GMT
What did you think of Samuel L. Jackson's Performance as the Main 'Human' Villain in the Movie if you don't mind me asking ?
Even though you are not asking me, i want to give my opinion. I thought his performance and role was cliche and stupid. It seemed like every other Samuel L Jackson performance. And only a liberal director would portray a career military man as so stupid, one dimensional and self-destructive.
Well to me, He was basically playing Captain Ahab.
|
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on Dec 8, 2019 19:07:51 GMT
Even though you are not asking me, i want to give my opinion. I thought his performance and role was cliche and stupid. It seemed like every other Samuel L Jackson performance. And only a liberal director would portray a career military man as so stupid, one dimensional and self-destructive. Well to me, He was basically playing Captain Ahab.
This sounds like a book reference. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Dec 8, 2019 19:16:28 GMT
What did you think of Samuel L. Jackson's Performance as the Main 'Human' Villain in the Movie if you don't mind me asking ?
Even though you are not asking me, I want to give my opinion. I thought his performance and role was cliche and stupid. It seemed like every other Samuel L Jackson performance. And only a liberal director would portray a career military man as so stupid, one dimensional and self-destructive. Career military men do stupid, destructive things all the time. That's how they get promoted.
|
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on Dec 8, 2019 19:19:07 GMT
Even though you are not asking me, I want to give my opinion. I thought his performance and role was cliche and stupid. It seemed like every other Samuel L Jackson performance. And only a liberal director would portray a career military man as so stupid, one dimensional and self-destructive. Career military men do stupid, destructive things all the time. That's how they get promoted. How would you know Cool? You have been in the military? Or you just hate the military like this director does? |
|
|
|
Post by Vits on Dec 8, 2019 21:17:27 GMT
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! 7/10 ------------------------------------- You can read comments of other movies in my blog (in English, in Spanish or in Italian). |
|
|
|
Post by THawk on Dec 8, 2019 21:21:08 GMT
Yeah 6/10 at best. Some cool scenes and effects, but there is a recurrent problem in all giant monster movies lately, especially Godzilla: They always try to make the monsters as good guys friendly to the Hollywood leads. Start out 'scary' but end up as giant pets basically. Completely idiotic in my view.
What did you think of Samuel L. Jackson's Performance as the Main 'Human' Villain in the Movie if you don't mind me asking ?
Nothing really. I always enjoy watching him in any film he is in, but his character, due to the script, was bland and one dimensional.
|
|
