Mortal Kombat Reboot

[happyninja42]

Its neither a hot or unpopular take to say that Mortal Kombat: Annihilation was fucking garbage. We knew it then, we knew it now.

And yet I still love the film. Mostly because of 2 elements. 1. They used a Juno Reactor song in the soundtrack during the fight with Jade, and that's always a plus for me.
2. The final bit, when the Elder Gods return and freeze Shao Khan's father, and state "In the end, it shall be decided as it has always been, in Mortal Kombat!" I don't know, but, I recall, vividly, in the theater, having a Keanu "Whoa" moment at that. As it really hadn't hit me before, as to the title of the competition. I mean, I understood as a fan of the games, that it was a competition where you could be killed, hence mortal. But the elder gods framed it as more of the concept of "being a mortal/human" if you wish to take the MORTAL realm, you will face it on MORTAL terms. No matter how powerful a god/demon/entity/whatever you are, when you come to OUR house, you can die, and you better be ready to face that.

So it sort of reframed the entire premise of the franchise in my head, into something a bit more profound. I mean it's still a cheesy, shitty movie, I won't deny it. But it also had a few moments that were pretty good I thought.

And you know, I said 2, but I just remembered that I really enjoyed it when Jax discovers he had the power within him all along, and no longer needed the dumbo feathers of his enhanced arms. Yeah, I know the actual character has bionic ones, not just an exosuit. But that slow mo sequence, where Sonya finally gets that stick out of her ass, and asks for help, and Jax just pops up like...well a Jax in the box, and rips that shit off, and goes to town on Mutaro, was quite enjoyable for me.

Movie overall sucks, yes.

 

[Piscian]

It's a perfect description of the sequel, however.

It's a movie where Jax, a character with robotic arms, is presented with fake looking plastic robot sleeves.

Later in a climactic scene, his robot arm is ripped off revealing -- that they were, in fact, simply fake looking robot sleeves and he's actually stronger without them.


Like, were they serious?! How is that not a parody?

Annihilation is one of those films that's objectively bad, but also boring so if it weren't so timely I'd regularly forget it even exists. I couldn't tell you who fights or what happens. I get bored by different things though. A movie can be action packed, but if that action isn't well choreographed or interesting I'm bored. I think I've slept through at least two of the Resident Evil movies and I just recently got about 45 minutes into Monster hunter before my eyes glazed over and I shut it off to go clean. These are the kind of movies folks like RiffTrax rarely do, because it's a struggle to even find much worth making fun of.

 

[hanselthecaretaker]

Thankfully the first review (that I’ve seen at least) of the latest installment has dished out a respectable amount of praise - along with some expected criticisms - in areas we all might’ve guessed already.


Mortal Kombat suffers from a painfully bland lead in Lewis Tan - an unnecessary addition to the existing roster - and dedicated fan-service that flip-flops back and forth between cheesy and cool. But thanks to fantastic turns from some of the rest of the cast (Kano! Who would've thought it?!) and director Simon McQuoid's thrilling, true-the-source bloody action, this film manages to actually give us that nigh-mythical good video game adaptation.

Mortal Kombat review - Not flawless but still a victory

Despite some issues, you should definitely GET OVER HERE and watch this new R-rated adaptation of Mortal Kombat.

www.criticalhit.net

 

[Gordon_4]

Thankfully the first review (that I’ve seen at least) of the latest installment has dished out a respectable amount of praise - along with some expected criticisms - in areas we all might’ve guessed already.


Mortal Kombat suffers from a painfully bland lead in Lewis Tan - an unnecessary addition to the existing roster - and dedicated fan-service that flip-flops back and forth between cheesy and cool. But thanks to fantastic turns from some of the rest of the cast (Kano! Who would've thought it?!) and director Simon McQuoid's thrilling, true-the-source bloody action, this film manages to actually give us that nigh-mythical good video game adaptation.

Mortal Kombat review - Not flawless but still a victory

Despite some issues, you should definitely GET OVER HERE and watch this new R-rated adaptation of Mortal Kombat.

www.criticalhit.net

An interesting bit of praise since the 95' version is also considered one of the better video game adaptations.

 

[hanselthecaretaker]

An interesting bit of praise since the 95' version is also considered one of the better video game adaptations.

They did wonders for it considering it was held back from being true to source material by the PG13 rating. It might’ve helped sales since most who went back then were kids from the arcades, but now it’s like those kids have all grown up so this new movie being no holds barred is an ace in the hole.

 

[happyninja42]

They did wonders for it considering it was held back from being true to source material by the PG13 rating. It might’ve helped sales since most who went back then were kids from the arcades, but now it’s like those kids have all grown up so this new movie being no holds barred is an ace in the hole.

See as someone who grew up playing the arcade MK games (at least up through 3), I don't find "now with 50% more blood physics!" as a really compelling selling point. This might sound weird, especially given the franchise, and how minimal the story was, but I was really in it for the story. I really enjoyed playing through, and seeing how each character's arc progressed by the end slideshow. And when I saw the '95 film, I wasn't bothered by the lack of blood, as a story isn't about blood. And if it is, well, then guess what, you're a bad writer...or actually writing a vampire story. And even then vampire stories aren't ABOUT the blood. So the fact that this new one is R, and thus had gore, I mean ok? And? CGI blood doesn't make me want to see any film, same goes for MK. I want a compelling story about a group of champions, chosen by the fates, to defend a planet against supernatural forces, in an ancient tournament to the death. Pitting a group of plucky warriors, against forces beyond their normal understanding, for the fate of billions. Because frankly, that's way more compelling for me, than "it's got blood physics now to go along with the jiggle physics!"

 

[hanselthecaretaker]

Currently sitting at 7.1 user score on IMDB after 2,819 ratings. For reference the original is at 5.8

 

[BrawlMan]

See as someone who grew up playing the arcade MK games (at least up through 3), I don't find "now with 50% more blood physics!" as a really compelling selling point. This might sound weird, especially given the franchise, and how minimal the story was, but I was really in it for the story. I really enjoyed playing through, and seeing how each character's arc progressed by the end slideshow. And when I saw the '95 film, I wasn't bothered by the lack of blood, as a story isn't about blood. And if it is, well, then guess what, you're a bad writer...or actually writing a vampire story. And even then vampire stories aren't ABOUT the blood. So the fact that this new one is R, and thus had gore, I mean ok? And? CGI blood doesn't make me want to see any film, same goes for MK. I want a compelling story about a group of champions, chosen by the fates, to defend a planet against supernatural forces, in an ancient tournament to the death. Pitting a group of plucky warriors, against forces beyond their normal understanding, for the fate of billions. Because frankly, that's way more compelling for me, than "it's got blood physics now to go along with the jiggle physics!"

"Mortal Kombat is not about death, but life." - Raiden (MK '95).

 

[hanselthecaretaker]

See as someone who grew up playing the arcade MK games (at least up through 3), I don't find "now with 50% more blood physics!" as a really compelling selling point. This might sound weird, especially given the franchise, and how minimal the story was, but I was really in it for the story. I really enjoyed playing through, and seeing how each character's arc progressed by the end slideshow. And when I saw the '95 film, I wasn't bothered by the lack of blood, as a story isn't about blood. And if it is, well, then guess what, you're a bad writer...or actually writing a vampire story. And even then vampire stories aren't ABOUT the blood. So the fact that this new one is R, and thus had gore, I mean ok? And? CGI blood doesn't make me want to see any film, same goes for MK. I want a compelling story about a group of champions, chosen by the fates, to defend a planet against supernatural forces, in an ancient tournament to the death. Pitting a group of plucky warriors, against forces beyond their normal understanding, for the fate of billions. Because frankly, that's way more compelling for me, than "it's got blood physics now to go along with the jiggle physics!"

Understandable. I’m a bit of an MK lore nut myself and now hopefully if the movie does well enough maybe someone will finally publish the Book of Souls MK encyclopedia that’s been in limbo so long.

However, let’s be clear that a PG-13 Mortal Kombat movie just doesn’t have the same kinda punch as what they can do with a proper R rating. If the story is the only concern, then they may as well all be just sitting in chairs doing script reads.

 

[happyninja42]

However, let’s be clear that a PG-13 Mortal Kombat movie just doesn’t have the same kinda punch as what they can do with a proper R rating. If the story is the only concern, then they may as well all be just sitting in chairs doing script reads.

*blinks* Wait seriously? If it's not R rated, it might as well just be a play at a table? That....seems a rather extreme view on the need for violence in cinema. The Lord of the Rings trilogy was all PG 13, and I would say it had plenty of "punch" to it's violence. It's really not about how many blood particles are rendered on screen, or at least it shouldn't be. It should be about HOW the violence is implemented, and does it serve the story. I mean we're all adults, if I'm shown a shot of someone with a bladed weapon, clearly making a stabbing, or slashing gesture at someone, but they angle the camera to not SHOW me the penetration, I still know it happened, and still wince. ESPECIALLY if it's a character that they took the time and effort to make me give a shit about.

I dunno, maybe I'm just weird, especially considering I'm of the age demographic that usually is harping for the "good old days of violence", but I've just never found it compelling. Even in franchises where it's expected. I'm not a violence prude, I don't actually care if it's in there, I just don't consider it a vital quality/requirement when judging the quality of a piece of entertainment. My only exception to the "violence prude" is when I learned the extent that the game devs were forced to go to, to make all that physics "real." Being forced to watch real footage of violence and dismemberment, just so the blood/particle physics are slightly more realistically rendered compared to the last MK game. That I find deplorable. But, otherwise I just find them as fluffery bits, garnish if you will. I'm much more interested in whether they make a Liu Kang that I enjoy watching, a Raiden that feels like an actual god of lightning, if they actually sell me on the conflict between Sonya and Kano, etc. Whether or not the blood spray physics when Sub Zero stabs someone? Yeah that's just not high up on my list.

I'm fine with violence when it matters, but violence JUST for violence's sake, well, then you just get the John Wick 2/3 films, which had almost no feeling to them, and were just action sequences chained together. At least the first one made me empathize with his grief at his lost wife, and the avatar of that loss in the form of the puppy. JW 2/3 were just "Wick kills some dudes, and then moves to the next set to do it again."

 

[hanselthecaretaker]

*blinks* Wait seriously? If it's not R rated, it might as well just be a play at a table? That....seems a rather extreme view on the need for violence in cinema. The Lord of the Rings trilogy was all PG 13, and I would say it had plenty of "punch" to it's violence. It's really not about how many blood particles are rendered on screen, or at least it shouldn't be. It should be about HOW the violence is implemented, and does it serve the story. I mean we're all adults, if I'm shown a shot of someone with a bladed weapon, clearly making a stabbing, or slashing gesture at someone, but they angle the camera to not SHOW me the penetration, I still know it happened, and still wince. ESPECIALLY if it's a character that they took the time and effort to make me give a shit about.

I dunno, maybe I'm just weird, especially considering I'm of the age demographic that usually is harping for the "good old days of violence", but I've just never found it compelling. Even in franchises where it's expected. I'm not a violence prude, I don't actually care if it's in there, I just don't consider it a vital quality/requirement when judging the quality of a piece of entertainment. My only exception to the "violence prude" is when I learned the extent that the game devs were forced to go to, to make all that physics "real." Being forced to watch real footage of violence and dismemberment, just so the blood/particle physics are slightly more realistically rendered compared to the last MK game. That I find deplorable. But, otherwise I just find them as fluffery bits, garnish if you will. I'm much more interested in whether they make a Liu Kang that I enjoy watching, a Raiden that feels like an actual god of lightning, if they actually sell me on the conflict between Sonya and Kano, etc. Whether or not the blood spray physics when Sub Zero stabs someone? Yeah that's just not high up on my list.

I'm fine with violence when it matters, but violence JUST for violence's sake, well, then you just get the John Wick 2/3 films, which had almost no feeling to them, and were just action sequences chained together. At least the first one made me empathize with his grief at his lost wife, and the avatar of that loss in the form of the puppy. JW 2/3 were just "Wick kills some dudes, and then moves to the next set to do it again."

I’m talking about the franchise specifically. I guarantee most fans deep down would be disappointed if they went the PG-13 route this time, after all this time. The violence just comes with the territory. I never meant to imply that that was all it needed to have going for it.

 

[happyninja42]

I’m talking about the franchise specifically. I guarantee most fans deep down would be disappointed if they went the PG-13 route this time, after all this time. The violence just comes with the territory. I never meant to imply that that was all it needed to have going for it.

*shrugs* I disagree, but different strokes and all that.

 

[BrawlMan]

*shrugs* I disagree, but different strokes and all that.

I see it like this, I necessarily don't mind the violence, so long as the characters and stories are done well. While 6 year old me was dissapointed with the lack of heavy gore when first seeing it, that disappointment quickly went way due to the charisma everyone carries in the '95 film. At this point, the gore is nothing more than bonus for me in the new film. That said, I don't mind gore, so long as it does not go in to the torture porn of films like the Saw sequels or TLOUS II's disaster in being edgy.

 

[happyninja42]

I see it like this, I necessarily don't mind the violence, so long as the characters and stories are done well. While 6 year old me was dissapointed with the lack of heavy gore when first seeing it, that disappointment quickly went way due to the charisma everyone carries in the '95 film. At this point, the gore is nothing more than bonus for me in the new film. That said, I don't mind gore, so long as it does not go in to the torture porn of films like the Saw sequels or TLOUS II's disaster in being edgy.

Yeah I'm mostly the same, minus the disappointed when I was a kid thing. That came out when I was a teenager, and the level of gore was never really a big draw for me. Also, a dude got insta froze and broken into meat popsicle chunks. That felt pretty fucking brutal to me, even if they didn't spray blood like a sprinkler across the set. So I was fine with how they did the violence, it was brutal when it wanted to be.

 

[hanselthecaretaker]

*shrugs* I disagree, but different strokes and all that.

Do you think any film’s R rating and/or violence is justifiable? Just curious.

Yeah I'm mostly the same, minus the disappointed when I was a kid thing. That came out when I was a teenager, and the level of gore was never really a big draw for me. Also, a dude got insta froze and broken into meat popsicle chunks. That felt pretty fucking brutal to me, even if they didn't spray blood like a sprinkler across the set. So I was fine with how they did the violence, it was brutal when it wanted to be.

Ok, that sounds a bit different then.

 

[happyninja42]

Do you think any film’s R rating and/or violence is justifiable? Just curious.

I'm not sure "justified" is even an appropriate term when talking about level of gore in a film. To reiterate, I don't CARE if it's there, I was commenting about what seemed to be your stance, of "how much blood and gibblets" a film has, as being a metric for quality. And I don't see that as a valid metric. If there is no REASON for the violence, then it is, by definition, gratuitous. Which again, I don't really care, but if someone tried to say this version of a film is say, a 6.5 because it's PG 13 and had no blood, but the exact same film was redone, and they cgi'd a ton of giblets and blood, and they say "ok now it's an 8.5" I would find that persons standards fairly strange.

If the selling point someone gives for why I should spend my money on something, is "it's got lots of blood and gore in it", personally, I don't find that a compelling reason.

THAT'S my point, as best as I can make it. The only reason I bring it up in this context, is it's a common criticism of the first MK film, and people often phrase the addition of an R rating, like just by being R, it's going to be better. And that assumption is apparently JUST on the fact "well now it can show me guts." And I'm just not impressed by guts. If I don't give a shit about the person those guts were attached to, either upset they are gutted because I liked their character, or glad they are gutted because they are a well written villain, I'm not going to be moved anymore than normal. Violence with a purpose is fine, violence JUST for violence, I could do without.

 

[Gordon_4]

Violence with a purpose is fine, violence JUST for violence, I could do without.

Correct. Please see Predator and Robocop for two of the best demonstrations of the truth of this principle.

 

[hanselthecaretaker]

I'm not sure "justified" is even an appropriate term when talking about level of gore in a film. To reiterate, I don't CARE if it's there, I was commenting about what seemed to be your stance, of "how much blood and gibblets" a film has, as being a metric for quality. And I don't see that as a valid metric. If there is no REASON for the violence, then it is, by definition, gratuitous. Which again, I don't really care, but if someone tried to say this version of a film is say, a 6.5 because it's PG 13 and had no blood, but the exact same film was redone, and they cgi'd a ton of giblets and blood, and they say "ok now it's an 8.5" I would find that persons standards fairly strange.

If the selling point someone gives for why I should spend my money on something, is "it's got lots of blood and gore in it", personally, I don't find that a compelling reason.

THAT'S my point, as best as I can make it. The only reason I bring it up in this context, is it's a common criticism of the first MK film, and people often phrase the addition of an R rating, like just by being R, it's going to be better. And that assumption is apparently JUST on the fact "well now it can show me guts." And I'm just not impressed by guts. If I don't give a shit about the person those guts were attached to, either upset they are gutted because I liked their character, or glad they are gutted because they are a well written villain, I'm not going to be moved anymore than normal. Violence with a purpose is fine, violence JUST for violence, I could do without.

You’re giving the impression that an R rated MK is somehow naturally diametrically opposed to a decent story within reach of the 1995 film. Like, you jumped right to that with the ...but “50% more blood physics", “CGI blood”, etc. doesn’t make for a good story, I want characters to care about, etc. comments, after I simply mentioned that it’ll be good to have an R rated MK which will be truer to the source material. All I’m saying is if I’m paying nearly $20 to see a movie notorious for basically starting the concept of game ratings way back when, then I want to say I got my money’s worth. That goes for all aspects of the presentation and yes, story; the latter of which will be an impressive feat to hold together given how convoluted the lore has gotten.

Correct. Please see Predator and Robocop for two of the best demonstrations of the truth of this principle.

Both of those were ironically made in 1987, and indeed R rated too. I just have to wonder if they would’ve had the same impact being PG13; especially in Predator’s sake.

 

[happyninja42]

You’re giving the impression that an R rated MK is somehow naturally diametrically opposed to a decent story within reach of the 1995 film.

No, that's not what I said at all. But i've now said it 4 times now, and frankly don't care to keep repeating myself. If you still don't get what I'm saying at this point, either I'm incapable of making it clearly (which could be the case, I sometimes ramble, and often type these up with interruptions from work, thus losing a train of thought), or you and I just have a very different view on cinema.

Both of those were ironically made in 1987, and indeed R rated too. I just have to wonder if they would’ve had the same impact being PG13; especially in Predator’s sake.

When I remember that film, which I enjoyed a lot, I don't remember the blood scenes. I remember the heat signature shot of the Native American guy, standing on the bridge, facing off with the Predator. How you hear his death scream echo through the jungle, and his entire team stop, taking note that their friend was obviously killed. I remember Arnold building his traps, and making his declaration of war, standing on a cliff and shouting out an obvious challenge to the beast. I remember the cat and mouse stuff. I have to actively recall the scenes with actual blood in them, because they aren't what mattered to me.

Same with Robocop. I remember the sequence of him walking through his home, having flashes of memories flooding him, superimposed by the shots of the real estate tv screens interrupting his memories. I remember the sequence of him walking through the drug lab, slowly and methodically fighting, while the white powder flies around him everywhere, with the musical score hammering home how much of an unstoppable force he was. And yes there were shots of blood squibs in that sequence, but that's not what I remember as making that scene awesome. It was the Step...shoot....step, point behind me and up, shoot....step, turn, shoot, etc. Just that mechanical determination. I remember Murphy writhing on the ground as Directive 4 was shutting him down, and all the cops, made into shadowy wraiths due to lighting and muzzle flashes, swarm around him, burying him in weapons fire. While he clearly reaches out for help and mercy. I remember him in the OCP tower, having his standoff with dick, and that great line from the Old Man, followed by his response and resolution. None of which are particularly violent, or at least not GOREY specifically. And yet the emotional weight, THAT is what I remember 33 years later. Not "oh man did you see how many blood squibs they popped on that guy!?" That stuff, I mostly just forget, or if I remember them, it's only because they are in the middle of a scene that was memorable for the content of it directly.

 

[hanselthecaretaker]

These kinds of movies had an R rating for a reason. It’s the total package and staying true to a director’s vision, not refraining to censorship to water down certain effects because they’re “unnecessary” or “don’t enhance character development”, etc. It all depends on how the work is framed and the intended context. Sure, Disney movies and LotR wouldn’t gain anything from adding content that required an R rating, but on the other hand, there are certainly quite a few R rated movies out there that would lose something if they were parred down to PG-13 or even lighter.

Veritable proof of which is watching something like The Terminator on cable to notice it just isn’t the same movie (provided one has actually seen the unedited cut). Or what about if when Gus walks out of Hector’s room in Breaking Bad and instead of missing half his face he just had a few scratches, then falls over dead. It wouldn’t have the same memorable effect.

Not that context really matters all that much in MK’s case anyways; at least in the case of giving thematic weight or relevance to its explicitness. It’s always been on the schlocky side, where the violence and gore often play out to comical effect, let alone simply being a part of its very identity. What matters is that it’s there, and not being held back because it wasn’t deemed necessary to the plot or something.