Kong: Skull Island - Part 3
- Thread starter Thread Manager
- Start date
- Status
weezerspider
Sidekick
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2006
- Messages
- 4,145
- Reaction score
- 1,271
- Points
- 103
This was film was a mixed bag. The film felt incredibly rushed, almost every line of dialogue is bad, the music felt like a 60's pop mix tape was playing randomly in the theater, the plot is pretty forced/bad and the overall look of the film was fake and cheesy.
HOWEVER, there are also plenty of really fun set pieces and Kong himself is very cool, which is kind of all you need for this kind of monster flick. The rushed pacing kills any and all potential for the film to be remotely above average, but ironically, the rushed pace gets us to each set piece quick enough to not get bored by the human characters. Godzilla is a much better film, but Kong is probably more enjoyable. I don't know. It's fine. 3/5
HOWEVER, there are also plenty of really fun set pieces and Kong himself is very cool, which is kind of all you need for this kind of monster flick. The rushed pacing kills any and all potential for the film to be remotely above average, but ironically, the rushed pace gets us to each set piece quick enough to not get bored by the human characters. Godzilla is a much better film, but Kong is probably more enjoyable. I don't know. It's fine. 3/5
TheVileOne
Eternal
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2002
- Messages
- 70,871
- Reaction score
- 15,091
- Points
- 103
I think a fair assessment.
TheVileOne
Eternal
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2002
- Messages
- 70,871
- Reaction score
- 15,091
- Points
- 103
It desperately is trying to do the Marvel shared universe thing. The post-credits thing is a total Marvel rip-off.
Roose Bolton
Son of Katas
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2011
- Messages
- 19,511
- Reaction score
- 3,799
- Points
- 103
Marvel wishes they had a villain as charismatic as King Ghidorah 
Tacit Ronin
Avenger
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2009
- Messages
- 20,527
- Reaction score
- 8
- Points
- 31
How would you compare it to Jackson's Kong?
DarthSkywalker
🦉Your Most Aggro Pal (he/him)
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2004
- Messages
- 133,310
- Reaction score
- 81,196
- Points
- 203
You should apologize, even if it was a joke.Marvel wishes they had a villain as charismatic as King Ghidorah
mclay18
Avenger
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2005
- Messages
- 17,391
- Reaction score
- 5,616
- Points
- 103
Jackson's Kong remake has more love and passion behind it, but the running time is punishing. Skull Island is a much more entertaining creature feature, with none of the secondary character bulls**t like Jack Black and the crew members. I didn't feel it was rushed myself.
The final Kong battle has to be seen on the big screen, and alone is worth the ticket purchase. It takes inspiration from Jackson's remake and Jurassic World, that's all I have to say.
CELTICPRED
Austrian Death Machine
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2008
- Messages
- 7,988
- Reaction score
- 6
- Points
- 58
Gets a pretty big "ehhhhhhhhhhhhh" from me. The Kong stuff is all fine and dandy, but it's really nothing you didn't see from the Jackson movie. It was just incredibly hard to sit through the grunts having any lines whatsoever. I mean I get it. Everything is compared to Predator and Aliens, but if you're going to try, don't make me cringe with every line they utter.
There was some awesome ridiculousness involving a gas mask and a samurai sword. I didn't know what the **** I was watching but it made me bust out laughing, from being unintentionally funny and badass at the same time. I'm glad i only paid 5 bucks to see it. Pretty much as lukewarm as I was leaving Godzilla. The human elements just aren't interesting, and the monster bits are too expensive to carry the film.
As for what others are saying about the final battle, just watch the Kong v. V-Rex fight, pretty much every beat from that fight is in this one. The more I talk about it the less I like the movie.
There was some awesome ridiculousness involving a gas mask and a samurai sword. I didn't know what the **** I was watching but it made me bust out laughing, from being unintentionally funny and badass at the same time. I'm glad i only paid 5 bucks to see it. Pretty much as lukewarm as I was leaving Godzilla. The human elements just aren't interesting, and the monster bits are too expensive to carry the film.
As for what others are saying about the final battle, just watch the Kong v. V-Rex fight, pretty much every beat from that fight is in this one. The more I talk about it the less I like the movie.
The Big G
A Filthy Ningen
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2016
- Messages
- 3,917
- Reaction score
- 2,821
- Points
- 103
Marvel wishes they had a villain as charismatic as King Ghidorah
damn striaght
Loki and Thanos could not hold KG's jock
harryoscop
Avenger
- Joined
- May 23, 2014
- Messages
- 25,489
- Reaction score
- 13
- Points
- 31
This movie doesn't sound good to me tbh. Not what I'd hope it'd be. Maybe I'll catch it after I see PR
Loden Greatstorm
Suko
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2015
- Messages
- 25,169
- Reaction score
- 4,970
- Points
- 103
Yours and mine both....
redhawk23
Wrestlin'
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2008
- Messages
- 17,137
- Reaction score
- 293
- Points
- 73
What these people are saying about the characters would be true if Brie Larson and Hiddleston were the only characters, but luckly much of the focus is elsewhere.
The soldier characters have a good dynamic that keeps the movie moving and Sam Jackson's Colonel Packard allows for some interesting wrinkles.
John C Reilly is Great.
redhawk23
Wrestlin'
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2008
- Messages
- 17,137
- Reaction score
- 293
- Points
- 73
Just got back from the theater.
I greatly enjoyed the film. I liked the set up they created with the setting. A 70s Vietnam monster movies is about the closest we're going to get in film to Joe Stokoe's Godzilla: Half Century War comic. The movie, like the marketing is very rooted in a lot of the iconography of Vietnam movies, and of the war itself but again, placing all of that in the context of a monster movie.
The characters are a bit of a mixed bag. If the film was focused more heavily on Larson and Hiddleston, it would be a problem as they have pretty much no reason to be there and not much to do. Luckily the film also includes several soldier characters who have a fun dynamic. They work well and you do find out more about them as the film progresses. Sam Jackson is pretty great as a colonel who doesn't want to let go of the war, that he sees America as just giving up on for nothing. He sees Kong and the Island as a new opportunity to win a fight.
The movie desperately wants to set up Hiddleston as an action hero but he simply isn't compelling.
Meanwhile though, John C Reilly is great. I was worried that his zany humor might take me out of the movie but ultimately I enjoyed the way he played off the other characters. He is fun to watch and much easier to root for than Hiddleston.
Take Brie Larson out of this film and nothing changes.
Then there is the big guy. The movie is less focused on showing the humanity of Kong, mostly because it isn't setting up the same kind of traditional tragedy. You do see though that he isn't just a destructive beast. He only attacks when provoked. He's more than willing to leave you alone if you don't pose a threat or you know, start dropping bombs and napalm.
(There's some pretty obvious commenting here on American foreign policy)
This movie delivers monsters in spades. One thing that took me aback about revisiting the original film at a theatrical showing last fall was I had forgotten just how many things Kong fights in that movie. This movie definitely operates in that spirit. Many different monsters come at the characters. I like that the film changes things up a lot. Not everything wants to kill you, some are even benevolent. The directer named dropped Princess Mononoke and Shadow of Colossus. Even if he hadn't Shadow of Colossus would have been exactly what came to mind for me given the size of the beasts and the way they move. Using those influences, the director is able to show a good sense of scale.
While not everything on Skull Island wants to immediately murder you, man when they do, they really do. I had avoided all the TV spots having only seen the first 2 trailers so there were a lot of the monsters and things I wasn't spoiled on. I enjoyed their designs and thought they were all well executed. Some might just eat you, others will impale you or cut you to pieces. Great stuff. I like also that movie hinted at other things that you don't ever actually see. There's more to this world.
A movie being "like a video game" is often used as the worst insult against a big VFX picture but here Vogt-Roberts takes videogame influences for some interesting perspectives. There movie makes use of views through Mason's cameras and even some views fixed on guns. Again the Shadow of Colossus influence is strong. The way Kong lumbers is not ape like. He strides across the land. The movie really shines in the fight scenes. Its not just all quick cuts, nor is everything hidden in smoke. Its much more like a wrestling match but shot fluidly and clearly.
I thought nearly all the effects were pretty well top notch. Almost all of the CG felt really solid. The movie in general is pretty heightened and stylized. I enjoyed the amount of color on display.
Besides the problems with some of the characters I could come up with a few more quibbles. The fact that there is a lot of music doesn't have to be a problem, as Guardians of the Galaxy has shown. A lot of the needle drops I don't think are that well integrated here though. Some are better than others, and there is one part that does some interesting stuff with the music and sound mix going in and out. Some of the music was used somewhat awkwardly in the scenes though. Also there was entirely too much Creedance Clearwater Revival. If you're going to give us music, mix it up!
The movie is a great amount of fun . I think it's a shame it probably won't do that well.
Edit: As an additional thought on the characters, I thought the film did a very good job of integrating the humans into the monster conflicts and vice versa. With this Kong being so much bigger than in many of the films this kind of interaction might have been difficult. Almost never though is it a matter of Kong fighting something in the distance while humans standby and watch. The humans are always fighting against the same things.
I greatly enjoyed the film. I liked the set up they created with the setting. A 70s Vietnam monster movies is about the closest we're going to get in film to Joe Stokoe's Godzilla: Half Century War comic. The movie, like the marketing is very rooted in a lot of the iconography of Vietnam movies, and of the war itself but again, placing all of that in the context of a monster movie.
The characters are a bit of a mixed bag. If the film was focused more heavily on Larson and Hiddleston, it would be a problem as they have pretty much no reason to be there and not much to do. Luckily the film also includes several soldier characters who have a fun dynamic. They work well and you do find out more about them as the film progresses. Sam Jackson is pretty great as a colonel who doesn't want to let go of the war, that he sees America as just giving up on for nothing. He sees Kong and the Island as a new opportunity to win a fight.
The movie desperately wants to set up Hiddleston as an action hero but he simply isn't compelling.
Meanwhile though, John C Reilly is great. I was worried that his zany humor might take me out of the movie but ultimately I enjoyed the way he played off the other characters. He is fun to watch and much easier to root for than Hiddleston.
Take Brie Larson out of this film and nothing changes.
Then there is the big guy. The movie is less focused on showing the humanity of Kong, mostly because it isn't setting up the same kind of traditional tragedy. You do see though that he isn't just a destructive beast. He only attacks when provoked. He's more than willing to leave you alone if you don't pose a threat or you know, start dropping bombs and napalm.
(There's some pretty obvious commenting here on American foreign policy)
This movie delivers monsters in spades. One thing that took me aback about revisiting the original film at a theatrical showing last fall was I had forgotten just how many things Kong fights in that movie. This movie definitely operates in that spirit. Many different monsters come at the characters. I like that the film changes things up a lot. Not everything wants to kill you, some are even benevolent. The directer named dropped Princess Mononoke and Shadow of Colossus. Even if he hadn't Shadow of Colossus would have been exactly what came to mind for me given the size of the beasts and the way they move. Using those influences, the director is able to show a good sense of scale.
While not everything on Skull Island wants to immediately murder you, man when they do, they really do. I had avoided all the TV spots having only seen the first 2 trailers so there were a lot of the monsters and things I wasn't spoiled on. I enjoyed their designs and thought they were all well executed. Some might just eat you, others will impale you or cut you to pieces. Great stuff. I like also that movie hinted at other things that you don't ever actually see. There's more to this world.
A movie being "like a video game" is often used as the worst insult against a big VFX picture but here Vogt-Roberts takes videogame influences for some interesting perspectives. There movie makes use of views through Mason's cameras and even some views fixed on guns. Again the Shadow of Colossus influence is strong. The way Kong lumbers is not ape like. He strides across the land. The movie really shines in the fight scenes. Its not just all quick cuts, nor is everything hidden in smoke. Its much more like a wrestling match but shot fluidly and clearly.
I thought nearly all the effects were pretty well top notch. Almost all of the CG felt really solid. The movie in general is pretty heightened and stylized. I enjoyed the amount of color on display.
Besides the problems with some of the characters I could come up with a few more quibbles. The fact that there is a lot of music doesn't have to be a problem, as Guardians of the Galaxy has shown. A lot of the needle drops I don't think are that well integrated here though. Some are better than others, and there is one part that does some interesting stuff with the music and sound mix going in and out. Some of the music was used somewhat awkwardly in the scenes though. Also there was entirely too much Creedance Clearwater Revival. If you're going to give us music, mix it up!
The movie is a great amount of fun . I think it's a shame it probably won't do that well.
Edit: As an additional thought on the characters, I thought the film did a very good job of integrating the humans into the monster conflicts and vice versa. With this Kong being so much bigger than in many of the films this kind of interaction might have been difficult. Almost never though is it a matter of Kong fighting something in the distance while humans standby and watch. The humans are always fighting against the same things.
Last edited:
redhawk23
Wrestlin'
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2008
- Messages
- 17,137
- Reaction score
- 293
- Points
- 73
People say this all the time but isn't how CGI works. Its not any cheaper to render things in the dark. Rendering all all that dust and accounting for all the different light sources from flames and things actually cost more. Samething with all the helicopter spotlights and neon in Pacific Rim. As films like District 9 show, sometimes bright sunlight and hard shadows are a cheap shortcut to presenting things as solid objects. The aesthetic is a major reason why District 9 looked so good on a 30 million dollar budget.
DACrowe
Avenger
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2000
- Messages
- 30,765
- Reaction score
- 625
- Points
- 78
This was a big dumb fun movie in the right sense. It wasn't cynical, or half-assed, or lazy. It knew exactly what it wanted to be, and worked very well, at least in the second 2/3rds. The first act is pretty tedious with all the exposition for characters about as thin as the paper their lines were printed on.
I enjoyed though the visual look, the obviously Apocalypse Now influenced cinematography, and the kinetic wide shots and spinning cameras for the action. But the only one with a full character was John C. Reilly, and he was delightfully fun in it.
I think some of the YouTube critics who lost their mind on it went in with the wrong mindset for it, because it really is in line with most monster movies and is far better than either American Godzilla. For Kong movies, it's at least better than the 1976 one, but it's not a patch on the original or likely even Peter Jackson's.
With that said, I am sure I will forget it in a day. After Logan, which has lingered in my mind for over a week, that is a bit of a jarring juxtaposition to go back to pretty fleeting blockbuster diversions. I wonder if that will effect how people, particularly in online fan circles, interpret this one.
I enjoyed though the visual look, the obviously Apocalypse Now influenced cinematography, and the kinetic wide shots and spinning cameras for the action. But the only one with a full character was John C. Reilly, and he was delightfully fun in it.
I think some of the YouTube critics who lost their mind on it went in with the wrong mindset for it, because it really is in line with most monster movies and is far better than either American Godzilla. For Kong movies, it's at least better than the 1976 one, but it's not a patch on the original or likely even Peter Jackson's.
With that said, I am sure I will forget it in a day. After Logan, which has lingered in my mind for over a week, that is a bit of a jarring juxtaposition to go back to pretty fleeting blockbuster diversions. I wonder if that will effect how people, particularly in online fan circles, interpret this one.
Gamma Goliath
Engine of Destruction
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2009
- Messages
- 14,604
- Reaction score
- 3,019
- Points
- 103
I really enjoyed this, it was fun action packed summer flick that snuck its way into march basically. Great characterizations of kong can't wait to see versus film.
MurkeNyou
Sidekick
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2015
- Messages
- 1,353
- Reaction score
- 310
- Points
- 73
So, given it's a King Kong movie, is there much "Beauty and the Beast" to it?Or is Larson touching his nose and being scooped out of the water the extent of their interaction? I loved the 33 and 76 version, but the Jackson version felt like a sexless Disney flick.
Gamma Goliath
Engine of Destruction
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2009
- Messages
- 14,604
- Reaction score
- 3,019
- Points
- 103
Much less beauty and the beast. Much more gentle giant fight for survival.
redhawk23
Wrestlin'
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2008
- Messages
- 17,137
- Reaction score
- 293
- Points
- 73
There's no beauty and the beast story here. Cut Larson out and nothing in the story changes.
legendkillin
Superhero
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2017
- Messages
- 5,720
- Reaction score
- 1,070
- Points
- 103
I liked that Kong had a good chunk of screen time. I liked the way he came off, the humans are not the main focus so they were ehh.
MurkeNyou
Sidekick
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2015
- Messages
- 1,353
- Reaction score
- 310
- Points
- 73
That is sad, I always seen that detail as a separating King Kong from the dozens of movie, cartoon, and comic rip-offs. What makes it King Kong vs. Generic Giant Gorilla. Ah well, now I feel better holding out for video.
Crazy to think they wasted Brie Larson. Wow.
jessicaforbes01
Civilian
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2017
- Messages
- 1
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 1
The movie looks great.. Curious about the difference between the other movie Kong.
Watch Kong: Skull Island online
Watch Kong: Skull Island online
- Status
