Kong - Skull Island - Welcome to Viet-Kong
- Thread starter Marter
- Start date
Although focusing on the monster is a better formula for these kind of movies, Kong himself has never felt to me like a true monster, just some sort of human/protagonist projection. I know that Godzilla has been this as well, but it didn't feel so, I don't know, blatant?
I've always rooted for the other, actual monsters (and am aware that they will not win, sigh), so no, I've never been a fan of this franchise. It'll be a pass from me.
Nonetheless, great review.
I've always rooted for the other, actual monsters (and am aware that they will not win, sigh), so no, I've never been a fan of this franchise. It'll be a pass from me.
Nonetheless, great review.
Am I NOT supposed to root for Samuel L. Jackson to shoot the giant gorilla? Because that's what I'm gonna do! I hope there's no heavy-handed "humans are the real monsters" moralizing, because it makes no sense on an island with ACUAL MONSTERS on it.
And I want to make a comment about how Brie Larson looks, but I don't want to sound sexist.
And I want to make a comment about how Brie Larson looks, but I don't want to sound sexist.
"Here we have a very expensive monster movie that doesn't have any pretenses about being anything more than a very expensive monster movie - except that it also has to kind of, sort of, continue to establish the very expensive giant monster movie universe."
So basically it took an already silly premise (original King Kong concept), took out any nuance from that premise (man vs. nature, 'true beauty,' "who's the real monster?"), and sacrificed it at the altar of a cinematic universe like the natives do for Ann?
Why am I not surprised?
So basically it took an already silly premise (original King Kong concept), took out any nuance from that premise (man vs. nature, 'true beauty,' "who's the real monster?"), and sacrificed it at the altar of a cinematic universe like the natives do for Ann?
Why am I not surprised?
This is honestly a very unfair way of painting it. Having just seen it I can tell you there sure is that man vs nature and who's the real monster theme that's basically the overt driving force behind half the movie's run time. The third act is basically driven by this entirely.Hawki said:
The true beauty part has been taken out though, but to be honest with a less hammy take on the premise then we've ever seen it would have been out of place.
The last Kong reboot was in 2005? Really been that long? Wow. That is some major restraint on behalf of a studio, waiting almost 12 years for a reboot. I think this movie is almost worth watching, if just to see Nick Fury and Loki hunt a giant ape.
Wouldnyou say thinsnis too scary for an 9 year old?Marter said:
He has seen Guardians of the Galaxy, the avengers movie and the civil war movie. We have an understanding that if he repeats any of Peter Quills potty mouth then it is the last film he sees until he can buy his own ticket.
I mean, I would let a 9-year-old see it. But I've seen other places suggest 10 or 12. Depends on the kid. It's a little more violent than the Marvel movies; more deaths and destruction, although nothing graphic. You could check out a site like kids-in-mind if you're really concerned. It details all that happens but tries to keep it mostly spoiler free. Like, instead of saying what happens to a character, it'll just say "a man gets shot" or whatever.bjj hero said:
Anyway, here's a link to that: http://kids-in-mind.com/k/kongskullisland.htm
First of all, the pun, it burns. I like it. I just got back from seeing this at the Emagine and I loved it! Skull Island fixed every single problem I had with the newest Godzilla and the 2005 Kong. Not overly long, 50/50 on the monster and humans, and making the human actually interesting and entertaining. Godzilla's problem was that so many of the human characters were boring as fuck. I so can't wait for this to hit blu-ray.Marter said:
Yeah, no way in hell would I bring anyone younger than 13 to this movie. I screamed out loud at one point, because my friend freaked out at a jump scare that I already knew was coming. He was sitting right beside me, and his sudden shrieking scared the fuck out of me.BuildsLegos said:
I've seen the movie and stand by the statement - the only thing I'd partly take back is the "altar of a cinematic universe" because to its credit, while the film does hint at further monsters (e.g. the hollow earth element), it does it in a way that feels natural to the plot (e.g. directly explains how the skull monsters operate).Zontar said:
I've only seen Jackson's King Kong - not the most nuanced movie in the world, but this feels like a 'dumbing down' on every level of storytelling. I hate using the "dumbing down" phrase, but it's one that comes to mind. It isn't just the characters that feel more bland, Kong himself feels less humanized. Also, the Vietnam War analogy...it's there, I guess, but that's about all it is - analogy, and not a particuarly good one outside Jackson's character, and even then you wouldn't need the Vietnam War for that character to exist.
There's some things the film does well (the fights are at least entertaining), some things it doesn't (characters, editing), some things that are hit or miss (the cinematography is...interesting, I'll put it that way), but at the end, it's a monster movie. I can't think of a single thing the film does better than Jackson's Kong.
You know I really enjoyed it I also really. I thought it was so much more entertaining than I had any reason to believe it would be. Also I really loved John C Reilly in it. On top of that I feel like I am one step towards having my stupid dream realized of having a Godzilla vs King Kong vs Freddy vs Jason vs Alien vs Predator movie.
I wouldn't say they removed it entirely, they just did it differently. More skewed towards being anti-war than condemning the exploitation of nature.Hawki said:"Here we have a very expensive monster movie that doesn't have any pretenses about being anything more than a very expensive monster movie - except that it also has to kind of, sort of, continue to establish the very expensive giant monster movie universe."
So basically it took an already silly premise (original King Kong concept), took out any nuance from that premise (man vs. nature, 'true beauty,' "who's the real monster?"), and sacrificed it at the altar of a cinematic universe like the natives do for Ann?
Why am I not surprised?
OT: I definitely liked it more than Godzilla. I actually liked a lot of the characters and the movie allowed itself to be silly. Not only that, they actually showed the creatures a lot and had them fight in the day, without huge plumes of dust everywhere. You could actually tell WTF was going on!
Is it mostly just a big dumb popcorn flick? Yes, but IMO, it's a better popcorn flick than most.
"Skewered" towards anti-war is a claim I can sort of get behind, but I feel that's giving the film too much credit. The story never really goes beyond "war is bad, m'kay?"RedDeadFred said:
There's references to anti-war I suppose - pilot guy became friends with Japanese pilot guy before the natives killed him, Weaver references seeing mass graves before, SAS guy asks "which one?" when pilot guy asks whether the Allies won WWII, and I guess Packer's actions could be an example of anti-war sentiment. Still, I can't get behind the claim that the film is inherently anti-war, because the conflict with Kong and the monsters doesn't work as analogy to any actual war, and it's use of force that gets them out of the situation.
If the film does have a theme, I'd say it's mankind's blase approach to the natural world, the idea that we're not only on top of the food chain (which is technically true in the real world), but that we can act how we want in regards to the natural world and not expect there to be consequences (which does have real world parallels, what with the extinction of species and disruption of food webs). So, on that note, I'd argue the film does have this theme in that it has the following events:
-The terrain mappers are dropped causing huge damage. We learn that it's an attempt to flush out Kong later, but that aside, it does show an arrogance to approaching the natural world, because the terrain mappers still function as scientific instruments. Nothing wrong with science of course, but it does demonstrate apathy to living creatures, and of course, there's a literal consequence in this case (Kong destroys the helicopters).
-Arguably the smaller monster attacks, like the pteranadon-esque creatures and the giant spiders are consequences of this - you messed up, now deal with the consequences of being ground-side.
-Awhile later, Packer is ranting about taking out Kong, and when black scientist guy points out that this would disrupt the ecosystem (allowing the skull monsters to proliferate on the surface), Packer claims that "we'll kill them too." This does have real-world parallels, the idea that you can remove/add a creature to/from an ecosystem, and account for all the differences this will bring. Of course, we don't have giant apes or reptiles stomping around, but the attitude is the same.
The idea isn't explored that in-depth, and it's been explored better in similar blockbusters (including the Jackson version), but if the film does have a theme, I'd say it's more the Man vs. Nature one rather than anti-war.
Oh, and using terms like "black scientist guy" isn't meant to be derogatory, just that I can barely remember any of the characters' names without looking up Wikipedia. Though to be fair, I'm pretty bad with film character names most of the time, even if I still feel that the film has pretty thin characterization for most of its cast.