Kong: Skull Island

Superman II?

anyways, inductive rather than deductive reasoning.

 

No it does not. I still don't know whether you panned this movie site unseen. Not sure why you are so cagey about your answer. And if you detect some condescension in my question you would be correct, as I dislike and devalue movie reviews from people who never watched the movie in question -a category I put your review in. If I am mistaken, apologies to you and well deserved.

 

I hate the ugly stinkin' hairy beasts. Much too close for comfort. That feeling only increased after I passed age 50 and caught the occasional side view of myself shirtless in a mirror.
I really want to see this movie but so far can't find anyone with enough kid in them to join me. I might have to go solo, in fedora and trenchcoat.

 

Oh right! that makes sense. sometimes I dont understand the numbers. I just thought it was odd in the article I read.

 

His question didn't seem very condescending to me. It sounded like an effort to solicit specifics about your opinion.

But the real reason I want to jump in on your comments is to suggest that the 'franchising' of 'movie universes' is actually something that is taking on new importance in modern film marketing - if not something necessarily desired by everyone. And not totally new, of course. Star Trek and Star Wars were earlier examples of 'film' series that merged with other forms of delivering stories in coherent universes beyond the bounds of the movies themselves. (They borrowed from the serials of the thirties and forties in this sense.)

Some movie series have gone on longer but don't necessarily crossover with much success into other kinds of formats - comic books, books, TV/Web episodes. Because Kaiju movies have a rich film history, Legendary is working on a long-term plan to build a coherent universe that contains the most well-kown of these monsters.

So, while you may certainly apply your long list of life experiences to the idea of sequels, I think that the potential of several more movies in the works changes the situation a bit. I'm thinking of the Marvel and DC films and how they've crossed over into each other. It makes it hard to discuss 'sequels' in the same way. Plus, they run the gamut of quality so that you can't really pin down what's likely to be good or bad based upon a sequence. I'm enjoying this thread. Chip in something substantial please.

 

According to your avatar Keith gave it 2 Mammary Glands, and Bill 1 Finger Up (his nose)

 

I went to a 10:00 Sunday Morning show and only 5 people there

 

comic book movies are just that, comic book movies. they can keep making (writing) them forever, no one ever dies for good and anything can happen, it's very hard to categorize them as "sequels per say.

the star trek movies are, to me, an extension of the TV series, every one has a new plot and every one is a different movie....definitely not sequels.

'star wars' is a different animal altogether. it is a 20 hour movie, you know going in that will be a few reveals but also that it will not be over, it will end, for now. hell, the fist one wasn't event he first one.

sequels are just that, an extension of the original movie...'godfather II & III" 'china town" & 'the two jakes"....the 'lethal weapon's', the dirty harry's". movies that couldn't exist on their own without the original.

 

Saw it last night. I need to watch Kong '76 again since that movie isn't fresh in my mind, but I think Skull Island is my least favorite of the Kong movies.

The special effects were great, but everything else is poor. This easily has John Goodman's worst acting performance. Samuel L Jackson was surprisingly bad as well.

I didn't care if the people survived, which is normal for this type of movie, but I also didn't care about Kong since he didn't have any personality. I also didn't understand why there weren't any dinosaurs. Sure, the other monsters were dinosaur-esqe, but I would have preferred real dinosaurs.

 

Not sure where the new Kong fits in here. Not a comic book. Not a TV extension. Not a super long story told over episodes planned way ahead of time. Reboot? But a reboot of what? Not the original movie. Not any of the previous ones. It wouldn't exist without the previous ones so it's definitely not original.

What did/do you think?

 

a remake in a different location.

no new york city, but for all intents and purposes, the gist of the story is the same.....man finds ape, man wants to exploit ape, ape gets pissed off,........

whole different subject from sequels, and comic books.

 

I'd call it a reinvention. Which is a kind of remake. So, agreement.

 

It's not.

 

Your wife lied to you.

 

I dont understand the hate this movie gets. Its a movie about a big ape, not Les Miserables. The complaint that its another King Kong movie is lame too. This is like the 4th movie in over 80 years.

The use of colors and scenery were stunning. Some of the scenes were pretty amazing to witness. The action was almost surreal. Special effects have come a long way. Some of the actors put on great performances.

*SPOILERS*

Brie Larson was gorgeous (the scene with her in bell bottoms wowzers). John C Riley, nailed the crazy stranded guy perfectly. He was funny and at times delivered some emotional lines, never cheesy. And Samuel Jackson played the overbearing military leader very convincingly. The line, "You are going to tell me everything I should know or I'm going to blow your head off" outstanding.

Bullet tracers in 3D from a 50 Cal, Burning skulls, Black Sabbath, Palm trees used as spears, what more can you want from an action movie? It was simply, a fun movie to watch no need to pick it apart for flaws.

 

Not even the JC Reilly character?

 

I was too busy looking at how hot she was in the tight tank top to notice any bell bottoms!

 

Aww hell, it was a fun Saturday afternoon monster movie. The end.

 

He was the best character, but I still did not care about him.

 

To each his own! Reilly really saved the movie to a large degree - he takes weak dialogue and makes it funny, and creates a fairly likeable character as well.

I do agree overall that the characters are mostly forgettable/anonymous - as is Kong. I never much invested in the big ape, and I think it's partly - mostly? - because they avoided the usual "monkey falls in love with girl" scenario.

Yeah, the movie tosses in a nod to the Kong/hot blonde thing, but not at all like in prior movies, so there's never the bonding that "humanizes" Kong.

This one is essentially a big violent ape with a smidgen of personality. He never develops into a character in whom we invest much emotion...

 

I saw the 2D version this past Tuesday. It was an ok movie. A lot of poor acting. Although I like most of the music played during the movie, I felt it was "out-of-place" except during some scenes in the beginning.

 

I would compare it more to a few jokes at a newborn baby's funeral. Nothing is going to save it.

I really wanted to like the movie. I think I went in with too high expectations hearing all of the positive reviews.

 

The moofie was set in 1973, but there seemed to be a lot of late 60's tracks playing (I think) ... which is probably what most viewers associate with Vietnam War era movies? Or just the director aping Apocalypse Now one more time ...

--Geoff

 

Wow - that's pretty dark, man!!!

 

That's because nobody goes to the movie theater at 10am!