Kong: Skull Island

Yup! Tough to claim a movie's a bomb when you go to a crack of dawn showing!

Anecdotals about attendance are always iffy anyway. I've seen many flops I thought would be huge due to heavy attendance at my screening - and many hits I thought would bomb because I went to largely empty viewings...

 

IMDb gave Kong:Skull Island a 7.1 rating. Logan a 8.6 rating. I'm planning to see one of them tomorrow....maybe both.

 

I thought Samuel L Jackson did quite a convincing portrayal of Samuel L Jackson.

Although I was a little disappointed afterward it was okay and I'm not going to complain about the movie.

Spoiler: Spoiler Alert

Though I was a bit bummed I didn't see a singing ant. I was really anticipating an attack of the chorus line.

It did have me think about the difficulties of making a Kong movie, of how close or far from the classic story to go. Being the fourth take, I was glad they went with a fairly fresh story. They had to.
During the jungle gauntlet, which is always my favourite part (monster geek that I am), I thought I'd like to see a movie that just goes straight to the point. A Running Man meets Hunger Games meets Cabin in the Woods on an island populated with utterly terrifying monsters and horrific demises. A horror movie. I didn't catch the 1933 King Kong during its initial run and gauge the audience reactions but wasn't it a horror movie?

 

"Logan" is much better. It's arguably the best X-Men-related film, while "Skull Island" is at best the third-best Kong flick!

 

Logan - it is then.

 

Don't blame me if you don't like it!

 

To be honest seem the trailer once, though ..yeah, seen it again and thought meh. So with that I'm hoping to be pleasantly surprised.

 

I was just pointing out that's when I went, not implying it was a benchmark of B.O. Judging by the parking lot, none of the 7 other films early (ok very early if you insist) matinees were well attended. But if theaters decide to show films that early, it must be feasible for them.

 

Not early.

Crack.

Of.

Dawn!!!

 

One "warning": "Logan" is waaaay more violent than any of the prior X-films.

It's a good thing IMO because it's truer to the character, but it's a bit jarring. I'm so used to the "sanitized" "PG-13" version of Wolverine that it's a jolt to see so much gore and mayhem...

 

Me likee.

 

Yeah, if you want graphic violence, you'll be happy with "Logan"!

 

Agree on something for a change.

 

Shouldn't the movie be called, "Viet KONG"?

 

Bang a Kong:
Skull Island.
Yeah ...very good, must admit.
More action than the 2005 one.
Though that one had a bit more class.

 

My wife and I saw it in 3D last Wednesday. We both enjoyed it very much. The only criticism I have is Samuel Jackson, I'm so sick of him, to me he's both an auditory and visual enema.

 

The beginning was stunning with American pilot /Japanese pilot shooting it out, just wish it continued from there.

 

Must admit I enjoyed LOGAN more. What a incredible clima x.

 

I liked the film. It was entertaining actually better than any Transformer movie (which always seems like action pornography and they get worse with each one. I think they are almost painful to look at).

Hiddleston was fine. Larson was fine. Everyone did a fine job in service of the effects and the movie. Stick around for an after credits tag.

I didn't feel it was as good as the original nor Jackson's over long epic but it wasn't a disaster which I fully expected.

 

The skull crushers were not as a formidable foe as the dinosaurs/T Rex's in the 2005 version I found. Loads of trailers before the main feature. I was most impressed with Guardians Of The Galaxy trailer best.

 

My wife and I saw it this afternoon in 3D and liked it for what it was: An afternoon's entertainment.

MILD SPOILER ALERT

There is a scene where John C. Reilly's character explains to the others that the sound they hear are actually giant ants .
Yet, unless I took an unnoticed nap, no giant ants were forthcoming.

I thought it was a little odd to set up a giant ant scene and then not have one.

Does anyone know if the movie was cut down for time, and this just became a loose end that was unresolved?

 

Think it was edited ( get the blu ray extended methinks).

 

Just got back from KONG: SKULL ISLAND this afternoon at a big family outing, and we all enjoyed it. As long as you know going in that's a silly, over-the-top action film, it's actually a pretty fun movie. Major props to DP Larry Fong and also Fotokem colorist Dave Cole for doing a bang-up job on lighting and color -- it's a striking-looking movie that does some interesting things and goes in very different directions than what we've seen before in this genre.

I'd say it's maybe 50% Apocalypse Now, 25% Jurassic Park, 10% generic comedy/thriller, and maybe the rest were bits and pieces of previous Kong movies (1933/1976/2005). I agree completely with @Glenn Christense that there should've been a payoff for the ants.

One surprise for me is that there were far more "ohhhhhhhhh..." gross-out reactions from the audience I was with. Many bystanders stepped-on, chewed up, spit out, impaled, hurtled off cliffs, burned, or god-knows-what. But it's a fun film if you're in the mood for it and have the right crowd. The movie looks great, too. And they waste no time letting you get a good look at Kong, so I'll give 'em that.

Make sure you stay for the end credits. Huge reveal at the very end.

 

If they did, I have to wonder if the scene even has finished visual effects. Since there weren't any folks missing it had to have been a quick encounter if at all.

 

Maybe he might have been joking about that? I can't recall exactly, but that was my impression ...

--Geoff