Kong: Skull Island Reviews
the film starts a little slow but picks up at about the middle. This is when I realised the films identity crises;it feels like there is two different films playing. You got the film where king kong is fighting other monsters and humans trying to survive in skull island-which is the film we all wanted to see. Then there's the other film that focuses on soldiers trying to kill kong.
Unfortunately the film doesn't give us enough of we want. So it's hard to recommend,remember and re-watch. I should also mention the CGI,which wasn't the best...and kong himself...wasn't really what I expected;I wanted him to be more muscular. Although the CGI wasn't the only weird thing;the film ends in a bad way. We don't see the characters (who I didn't care about,except maybe the stranded WW2 captain) go back home or anything
as a grade I'd give it something like a C+
No more than 5 minutes after the movie was over, I completely forgot about it. I didn't discuss any scenes from it, didn't ask my friends what they liked, it just didn't generate any sort of discussion. A total waste of potential.
First let me get all the good out of the way. Kong was impressive, his action scenes were very good looking most of the time, with lots of really cool "poster shots". The creature design was great, although kind of limited. I expected to see a lot more of the wildlife of the island, but in the end only got a handful. The worldbuilding of this "kaiju" universe is still cool, tying into the recent American Godzilla movie.
And that's basically it for the good stuff.
Now the bad. All the talent they got for this movie was expertly wasted. Take every actor besides John C. Riley and replace him with literally anyone else, and you get the same uninteresting, uninspired, boring, flat characters. Even the guy that mo-capped Kong didn't do that good of a job at making Kong seem interesting. Brie Larson was a terrible Kong girl, it actually makes me mad thinking about how bland she was. What a failure. The Loki actor was always shit in my opinion, and this movie didn't change anything about that. John Goodman is usually amazing, but here he just got to play a barebones character. Didn't care about him at all. And finally Sam Jackson, almost forgot about him. That's how I know his role was extremely bland and uninspired.
The only character and actor that worked in this entire movie was John C. Riley's character. The saving grace of this movie. Charming, funny, heartbreaking, unexpected, and just pleasurable to watch.
I was expecting a lot more. Guess I'll stick with the 2005 Kong movie which is vastly superior.
KONG: SKULL ISLAND
Call me crazy but I tend to prefer smart entertainment. Even with admittedly popcorn blockbusters, I'll always lean towards the ones that bring something new. I got to say that I had my expectations high for this one but they quickly got smashed as hard as Hollywood's idea of having no character development. But even with undercooked characters, the performers can't raise the bar. Brie, the ultimate example of a one time Oscar winner, goes from dull to questionable, John C. Reilly is an archetype and Samuel L Jackson is... well, Samuel L. Jackson, reminding us that you can do tons of movies and in most of them play you. Even Tom Hiddleston, one of the most underused performers of today, is lifeless and can't give weight to an uneven and unremarkable screenplay. He seems to have been cast based on the fact that he looks great in a tight shirt and what a nice piece of ass that is but... that's all there is to him. The fact that Kong is the most captivating character in the film, even though his true nature is glossed over, tells you a lot of how barren this is. Peter Jackson's film is actually very good and even though it's pretty much mass entertainment, it's enjoyable and builds upon Jackson's greatest suit: acute sense of storytelling. This new film throws away the love dynamic girl-ape with disgrace. Knowing that it's the most alluring aspect of the Kong films, stripping away the duality of a beast loving a woman and not replacing it with something as stirring, is a wrong move. There are some good action scenes but never a stand out, and the the third act is the most bearable one, remembering to drop the blockbustery color palette present throughout the film and giving us some good shots. Some other scenes are poorly constructed and incite laughter when it was not intended, but overall the film doesn't take a risk that allows it to be either very good or awful. After the credits roll, the wait-there's-more! moment comes along and the mandatory cinematic universe starts being built. Wow, how surprising. It's coming to a point when every studio points to the Avengers and say, "Capitalist New York mommy, I want a shared universe! I want it! I want iiiiiiit!". Lastly, it's ironic that this movie's promotional campaign steals so much of Apocalypse Now, as the it lacks what Coppola's film was filled to the brim with: dare.
The movie had a nice fluid plot most of the way but then looses momentum at the end and ends up getting kind of silly and ignores character motive.
Great Production: 2.0 stars
A visual and auditive splendor. Its only fault was lack of pushing the cinematography to develop more breath taking shots of its location and rely less on special effects.