Kong: Skull Island

That was a funny little bit.

And while I got the impression that maybe there was a giant ant scene planned, it was scrapped. Personally I don't think every thing in a story needs to have payoff, and yeah it just added to the flavor of the island.

I did think it was a waste of the movie's only use of the word 'fuck', though.

Especially when they didn't let Samuel L. Jackson use it. Or have him say he has had it with these monkey-fighting snakes.

I did love him just yelling "Bitch, please!" at Brie Larson.

I almost did not recognize Tom Hiddleston - he has got a seriously good workout routine, evidently.

Saw the film, it was a pretty good monster bash. The director wasn't kidding when he said that Kong shows up early.

Main problem, and somewhat similar to the '14 Godzilla, is that the characters end up being really dull. The exception is Reilly as Marlow. It's kind of amusing, with the trailers I felt his character was a huge tonal issue, but the movie is very much that kind of weird and it's everyone else who doesn't fit because they are so bland. Goodman and Jackson are close behind him, but the film relies excessively on Jackson's Kubrick Stare and "fire in the eyes" imagery. What's strange is that the direction is obviously trying to make these characters more interesting, but somehow that is what makes them dull. Conrad being introduced in a bar fight was quite a cliche and the character does nothing remotely similar for the rest of the film. Hiddleson and Larson have pretty much zero chemistry, even the platonic hug at the end didn't feel earned.

Kind of a shame, since the actual story and plot is rather interesting. The same alpha predator concept was suggested in Godzilla and put on full display here. The expansion of the story around Monarch is interesting, along with how it ties itself to Vietnam. Mason as a photojournalist documenting the war and Packard seeing her as the enemy for turning public opinion against the war was an approach not often seen in military fiction. The movie was kind of all over the place in terms of tone, characters take turns making Medium Awareness comments, making it feel like one writer with one voice instead of every character having their own voice, which is why Marlow's consistent antics felt distinct. And the sequence of events in the climax doesn't really come together. The alpha skullcrawler was able to easily subdue Kong because of his previous burns, and then despite NOT showing up until Kong was injured so it had a fighting chance, decided not to finish him off and went after the puny humans multiple times. In addition, there was a little bit of Ending Fatigue as you're not quite sure when the movie is over.

edited 15th Mar '17 11:43:35 PM by KJMackley

I don't understand that complaint. Conrad and Weaver weren't a couple if that's what you thought.

This movie didn't have any romantic subplot now that i think about it.

I'll give the movie credit for not cramming in a romance plot. Plenty of other writers/directors would of had Conrad and Weaver kiss at the end without bothering to ask if it added anything meaningful to the story.

Actually it wouldn't surprise me if Conrad and Weaver did get together in an earlier version of the script, but someone actually did ask wether it added something to the story or they were just forcing the main male and female leads together out of a misplaced sense of obligation. Then after they realized it was the latter they did the right thing and cut it.

There are different types of chemistry: romantic chemistry, comedic chemistry, dramatic chemistry and just plain emotional chemistry. We should get a sense that they are experiencing this adventure together and connecting on some level. I'm saying we don't get ANY chemistry, and thinking about it I don't think actors have been this badly upstaged by special effects since the Star Wars prequels.

edited 17th Mar '17 10:55:52 AM by KJMackley

Saw this movie a week ago and really loved it. It's much better than Godzilla (2014), which I thought was good but not that good. I didn't have a problem with anyone's performance (John C. Reilly knocked it out of the park) and the creature designs were top-notch. I can't wait to see what's in store for this giant monster cinematic universe. I'm really digging the idea.

My only complaint is that there are no dinosaurs. I know it's not a big deal, and like I said, the creatures we did see are amazing (especially that six-legged log monster; it reminded me of the beetle things from The Subspace Emissary), but it's just not Skull Island without dinosaurs. I guess I still have King Kong (2005), which is crazy underrated, to scratch my dino itch. The director's cut especially.

All I have to say is that I hope this monster universe doesn't limit the monsters to Kong, Godzilla, and their adjacent kaiju, as excited as I am to see Mothra, Rodan, and especially King Ghidorah. Hear me out here: Godzilla Vs. Cthulhu. You're welcome.

Come to this thread and first thing I see is the word "Godzilla".

King Kong vs Godzilla is as inescapable as Goku vs Superman.

I have plans to see this Tuesday. I don't know a whole lot about the movie. Hope it will be good!

Well, they are explicitly setting up a shared universe specifically so this version of King Kong can eventually fight Godzilla.

According to Wikipedia, this is called the "MonsterVerse." Anyone wanna make the Tropes page?

Shouldn't Universal's shared movie monster series be called the Monsterverse? This one should be called the Kaijuverse.

edited 20th Mar '17 1:20:05 PM by PushoverMediaCritic

No-one is going to say Kaijuverse. And Universals thing is the Horrorverse, I believe. I think its also cancelled because Dracula Untold flopped so badly.

No, they're using The Mummy to try again.

You know what I think Universal's problem is? Their reinventions of the classic movie monsters are just not that appealing. When you're trying to build a shared cinematic universe, reinventing the characters at all may be a bad idea.

Take Marvel. They're pretty loyal adaptations of the comics. They change plot points around a lot, sometimes radically, but all the imagery looks like it leapt right out of the page. When you see Iron Man, you see Iron Man. You don't see "The MCU incarnation of Iron Man."

On the other hand, take DC. Their public profile is so much broader than Marvel's, you'd think they'd be winning handily. But they obstinately insist on going against the public imagination (Jesse Eisenberg as Lex Luthor being the most egregious example), so they're struggling. If you're going to try to sell a film franchise on the idea of "All these classic characters, together at last!" then you'd better make sure people can actually recognize the people onscreen.

Dracula Untold and, from the looks of things, The Mummy (2017) have the same problem. I guarantee that if the Mummy trailers were showing us a Boris Karloff lookalike in a fez, people would be taking notice. That goes triple for a Lugosi-style Dracula that lives in a spooky Halloween castle full of coffins and fluttering bats and suits of armor. We like that Dracula.

I think a big part of the reason the Legendary "MonsterVerse" is getting good reviews so far is that everything looks the way it's supposed to. We see Godzilla and go, "Oh yeah, that's Godzilla."

On the other hand, Kong is about 50 times his normal size and never climbs a building in new york.

He's been bigger (such as in the original King Kong vs. Godzilla), and the Skull Island stuff is famous enough on its own, since it all comes from the original 1933 flick. Personally, I don't think Kong: Skull Island deviates too much from what people imagine when they hear the name "King Kong." Even the 1970s setting is somewhat familiar.

A while back I read an essay that none other than Hideo Kojima wrote about Kong: Skull Island. Apparently the director of this movie is directing a Metal Gear movie.

Whoa, really? Can I get a link? Is it in English, so I can read it?

Did... Did he like it?

http://www.glixel.com/news/kojima-on-how-kong-skull-island-reinvigorates-monster-movies-w471620

Right here, and yes, he liked it.

Makes sense given the Gray Fox reference.

Saw this movie. I came for giant monsters punching other giant monsters, I got giant monsters punching other giant monsters. I very much appreciate the good pacing, lack of overly long action, and creative ecosystem to the island. I also like that John C. Reilly's character wasn't made into a Mighty Whitey who rules the natives; he's just a weird neighbor they allow to live with them. And he was the best human character of the movie.

Many of the characters are underwritten, and at least the movie knows it and doesn't try to overplay like Brody in the previous Godzilla. That said, I think the movie could've used a stronger ending than just them about to fly away. Perhaps, a scene with them returned to Washington where they see all the political chaos like at the beginning. but feel less overwhelmed by it. Having seen real power and danger on Skull Island, they resolve to protect this fragile civilization despite how messed up it gets. That could've been a little more poignant and applicable.

That sounds like a pretty good ending. Didn't really mind the one we got, though.

I wonder if Mothra is going to get her own movie, or if they'll just put her in an upcoming Godzilla movie. I know she's popular in Japan, but I'm not sure she can draw a big crowd in the States.

I could see a Mothra movie, with Batra as the villain.

The problem (so to speak) is that, being an insect, Mothra is far less expressive than Kong or Godzilla. Her movie would need truly compelling human characters.

And no actors wearing makeup to pretend they're Polynesian.