Leatherface
Member
I didn't think it was too good personally. It did however make me appreciate the Peter Jackson Kong movie much more.
put me in the camp that thinks the movie is well worth the time. Sure, they don't use the actors very well and the tone can shift at weird times. but it's visually gorgeous and gives some campy monster fun.
I am unashamed to say that I enjoyed the part where Kong takes the tree and strips the branches off and uses it like a sword against the skull-crawler.
We may differ on the "slightly", but yeah.Slightly worse than the godzilla from a few years ago.
This movie was fun. Sure, the dialog was overly goofy, some of the plot contrivances were silly, and the movie is constantly mugging you in the face with how campy it gets.
But the point is that it's fun. Kong gets to actually do fun things. SLJ and Goodman get to chew the hell out of some scenery. The music was fun. Just, everything was so fun. I can forgive the flaws that are present because I was enjoying myself so much that it really didn't matter.
And it held up on a rewatch, too.
It was pretty meh. Can't really remember anything from the movie other than "Bitch please" and I had completely forgotten that Tom Hiddleston was in it until I googled the movie ten seconds ago.
It wasn't Jurassic World levels of so terrible I was angry at having seen it but it's not good enough for me to ever want to watch it again.
Shea Whigham continues to be a good actor who needs more roles.
So, like, I defended the hell out of Godzilla 2014, because I really bought into the narrative that monster movies need to show self restraint in showing the monster, because it's ultimately so much more satisfying when you get the one brief scene of the monster in full doing its thing.For all its flaws (characters, writing) I will say I came out of it feeling a helluva lot more entertained than I did watching Edward's Godzilla. Now that movie bored me to tears. But yeah, gorgeous visuals, good action, John C. Reilly nails his performance with flying colors especially at the very end.
So, like, I defended the hell out of Godzilla 2014, because I really bought into the narrative that monster movies need to show self restraint in showing the monster, because it's ultimately so much more satisfying when you get the one brief scene of the monster in full doing its thing.
Meanwhile, Kong opens up with Kong front and center, has him doing fun stuff all throughout the movie, and then ends on. There wasn't a moment where I wasn't smiling at what was going on in Kong.Kong going fucking God of War on the Skullcrawler Queen
Now I can't ever go back to Godzilla 2014. It really was boring and we were just trying to convince ourselves otherwise.
So, like, I defended the hell out of Godzilla 2014, because I really bought into the narrative that monster movies need to show self restraint in showing the monster, because it's ultimately so much more satisfying when you get the one brief scene of the monster in full doing its thing.
Meanwhile, Kong opens up with Kong front and center, has him doing fun stuff all throughout the movie, and then ends on. There wasn't a moment where I wasn't smiling at what was going on in Kong.Kong going fucking God of War on the Skullcrawler Queen
Now I can't ever go back to Godzilla 2014. It really was boring and we were just trying to convince ourselves otherwise.
I hope the approach taken to Kong is what will be applied to King of Monsters. With Godzilla, Rodan, Mothra and King Ghidorah all in the movie, you cannot hold anything back. Fire on all cylinders.
It was pretty much exactly what I expected from seeing the trailer. I'd go so far as to say that the film is just a two hour version of the trailer. Meaning I was not impressed.
Godzilla was the far better film. And Peter Jackson made a far better Kong.
Edwards made a fantastic Godzilla movie which was as true to its roots as you could get from a big budget Hollywood version, Kong is just mediocre.
I enjoyed it a lot. It makes no bones about being just a big, silly monster movie.
I enjoyed it a lot. It makes no bones about being just a big, silly monster movie.
Yep, it knows exactly what it is.
I know I'm like GAFs biggest Godzilla fan and all that, but I don't really get this sentiment. The movies which have something beyond monsters beating the shit out of each other are always better their spectacle-only counterparts in my opinion. It's how Godzilla become a huge franchise and cultural icon in Japan in the first place and why most Western monster movies aren't remembered outside of late night marathons or cult fanbases. Kong has some cool action but I doubt anyone is going to talk about it outside of "that one part was sick" a decade from now.
Kong was a throwback to old cheesy 50's B movies
This movie has almost zero in common with 50s horror. It's certainly not a throwback to anything unless you think 2009's "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen" qualifies as "Throwback"
Edwards made a fantastic Godzilla movie which was as true to its roots as you could get from a big budget Hollywood version, Kong is just mediocre.
I like it. Good fun action set pieces. And I'm not quite sure why some gave it poor reviews. The low point would be how pointless that Chinese lady in the near top billing was, lol.
I don't need, nor want every monster movie to be Gojira, and I appreciate a movie that knows exactly what it is trying to do. Kong was a throwback to old cheesy 50's B movies, and it was not trying to hide it. And I think this movie is defenitely going to stick with me man, so please speak for yourself. Skull Island was the most fun I've had in a theatre in years.
I didn't even have the original Godzilla in mind while writing that post. I specifically mentioned how I like the films that had something "beyond just monsters beating the shit out of each other" (in other words, I was talking about the sequels with themes). It's fine if the people behind a movie just want it to entertain people and have cool moments, and they do deserve praise for delivering on it. What I don't get is when people seemingly frame that praise as something that sometimes comes off as "these movies are inherently silly, so any attempts at substance are inherently bad thus I'm glad they didn't try it." It looks unreasonably dismissive, considering as some of the sillier, monster action packed films do have substance. For the most part, those are the ones that get loved and respected for decades. If I misundersood those posts, feel free to criticise me, but that's how they came off and that's why I decided to respond like that.
I know I'm like GAFs biggest Godzilla fan and all that, but I don't really get this sentiment. The movies which have something beyond monsters beating the shit out of each other are always better their spectacle-only counterparts in my opinion. It's how Godzilla become a huge franchise and cultural icon in Japan in the first place and why most Western monster movies aren't remembered outside of late night marathons or cult fanbases. Kong has some cool action but I doubt anyone is going to talk about it outside of "that one part was sick" a decade from now.
What I don't get is when people seemingly frame that praise as something that sometimes comes off as "these movies are inherently silly, so any attempts at substance are inherently bad thus I'm glad they didn't try it." I
I saw a bit of footage of it on Youtube and it seems like a good popcorn action flick but obviously not much of an Oscar winner. The reason I ask is I've found as I've gotten older, my patience for movies has waned a fair amount. Even if a movie is not particularly bad but just average, I'll turn it off mid way. I'm a huge fan of monster flicks as well so I figured it would be my cup of tea