|
|
Post by Vits on Aug 1, 2017 10:50:36 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). |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2017 16:22:42 GMT
I liked it. 7/10
|
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Sept 2, 2017 17:27:38 GMT
Loved it; had a lot of fun watching it. The only King Kong movie I dislike is the 1976 remake; I get why some may like it. I just found it boring and was annoyed by the uber-liberal slant (you read correctly).
|
|
|
|
Post by Tristan's Journal on Sept 2, 2017 17:29:29 GMT
Ok especially the Moby Dick part but some ridiculously dumb action sequences and some bad overacting, hated Brie Larson in this.
6/7
|
|
|
|
Post by koskiewicz on Sept 2, 2017 17:29:55 GMT
...great special effects...I liked it a lot...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2017 18:07:57 GMT
Ok especially the Moby Dick part but some ridiculously dumb action sequences and some bad overacting, hated Brie Larson in this. 6/7 She didn't have enough to do to be dislikable, surely? |
|
|
|
Post by Tristan's Journal on Sept 2, 2017 18:23:54 GMT
Ok especially the Moby Dick part but some ridiculously dumb action sequences and some bad overacting, hated Brie Larson in this. 6/7 She didn't have enough to do to be dislikable, surely? I found her (and others) acting in this annoying and unnatural, that certainly was the fault of the director too. One example: when she "meets" tower-high Kong and the beast stares at her: She does not naturally look and bow down so not to provoke him like anyone with survival instinct and basic zoological/behavioral knowledge would do (in facts apes and humans do that), no she upright stares back right into his Kong eyes like daddy's little girl, and when he eventually turns around her relief is overacted like in first semester acting class. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2017 18:26:11 GMT
She didn't have enough to do to be dislikable, surely? I found her (and others) acting in this annoying and unnatural, that certainly was the fault of the director too. One example: when she "meets" tower-high Kong and the beast stares at her: She does not naturally look and bow down so not to provoke him like anyone with survival instinct and basic zoological/behavioral knowledge would do (in facts apes and humans do that), no she upright stares back right into his Kong eyes like daddy's little girl, and when he eventually turns around her relief is overacted like in first semester acting class. How would her character know zoological/behavioral knowledge? Was that established anywhere beforehand? I'm not saying I thought she was anything special, just didn't dislike her performance either. |
|
|
|
Post by DarkManX on Sept 2, 2017 18:34:38 GMT
I liked it. It was leagues better than the remake Peter Jackson made.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tristan's Journal on Sept 2, 2017 18:38:18 GMT
I found her (and others) acting in this annoying and unnatural, that certainly was the fault of the director too. One example: when she "meets" tower-high Kong and the beast stares at her: She does not naturally look and bow down so not to provoke him like anyone with survival instinct and basic zoological/behavioral knowledge would do (in facts apes and humans do that), no she upright stares back right into his Kong eyes like daddy's little girl, and when he eventually turns around her relief is overacted like in first semester acting class. How would her character know zoological/behavioral knowledge? Was that established anywhere beforehand? I'm not saying I thought she was anything special, just didn't dislike her performance either. dude, trust me, go out into the wild and meet a real (man high) gorilla/silverback. Look him in the eyes and you will be surprised how your own instincts overpower you within a millisecond and you automatically look (and sit) down so not to provoke him - it's your natural survival instinct kicking in. Apart from that, when you go on tours like that you usually get some basic instructions how to handle wildlife, or it may end badly. I did not like her acting here, compared to her big one, Room, she was reduced to an amateur pretty bimbo IMO. But you do not have to agree on this. |
|
|
|
Post by _ on Sept 2, 2017 18:57:25 GMT
Loved it.
|
|
|
|
Post by salomonj on Sept 2, 2017 23:25:08 GMT
Thoroughly enjoyed it
7/10
|
|
|
|
Post by THawk on Sept 10, 2017 19:59:33 GMT
6/10, disappointing.
While it had a great and very promising first act, it all went completely down the popcorn hill. It could have been an interesting "man gets what he deserves" story, but of course they needed the human heroes to bloat up the screen-time and kill any thematic intrigue. Decent effects, OK entertainment, but heavily generic at the end.
|
|
|
|
Post by barkingbaphomet on Sept 10, 2017 20:40:19 GMT
the human beings sucked terribly except for Sam Jackson and he was only just okay. you almost have to work at it to keep me from caring about a character played by John C. Reilly or John Goodman.
however, the monster spectacle was terrific.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lebowskidoo 🎄😷🎄 on Sept 10, 2017 22:11:02 GMT
I don't recall seeing Moby Dick in this movie.
|
|
|
|
Post by twothousandonemark on Sept 10, 2017 22:35:04 GMT
Really liked it; still prefer Godzilla '14.
One goof'ish angle (even watching the blu director commentary), Kong's sunset intro money shot (director's words): the next 25mins or so of the movie isn't even at sundown, not until they settle at the tribal village.
Soo...yeah, it's sunset for a cool visual, then abandoned & ignored.
|
|
