Search
Lyndsey Gollogly (2893 KP) rated The Weight of Him in Books
Mar 6, 2022
40 of 230
Book
The Weight of Him
By Ethel Rohan
⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️
In The Weight of Him Billy Brennan undergoes an unforgettable journey in a starting attempt to resurrect his family and reignite hearts, his own most of all.
At four hundred pounds, Billy can always count on food. From his earliest memories, he has loved food's colors, textures and tastes. The way flavors go off in his mouth. How food keeps his mind still and his bad feelings quiet. Food has always made everything better, until the day Billy's beloved son Michael takes his own life.
Billy determines to make a difference in Michael's memory and undertakes a public weight-loss campaign, to raise money for suicide prevention--his first step in an ambitious plan to save himself, and to save others. However, Billy's dramatic crusade appalls his family, who want to simply try to go on, quietly, privately.
Despite his crushing detractors, Billy gains welcome allies: his community-at-large; a co-worker who lost his father to suicide; a filmmaker with his own dubious agenda; and a secret, miniature kingdom that Billy populates with the sub-quality dolls and soldiers he saves from disposal at the toy factory where he works. But it is only if Billy can confront the truth of the suffering and brokenness within and around him that he and others will be able to realize the recovery they need.
Told against the backdrop of rural, contemporary Ireland, The Weight of Him is a big-hearted novel about loss and reliance that moves from tragedy to recrimination to what can be achieved when we take the stand of our lives.
This was not a book I’d normally pick up and it came to me in a box subscription. I’m so glad it did it was so beautifully written and dealt with a some important issues suicide, grief , depression, weight loss and lots more. I loved it I didn’t put it down it had such a sad underlying story. Definitely glad it landed on my tbr.
Book
The Weight of Him
By Ethel Rohan
⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️
In The Weight of Him Billy Brennan undergoes an unforgettable journey in a starting attempt to resurrect his family and reignite hearts, his own most of all.
At four hundred pounds, Billy can always count on food. From his earliest memories, he has loved food's colors, textures and tastes. The way flavors go off in his mouth. How food keeps his mind still and his bad feelings quiet. Food has always made everything better, until the day Billy's beloved son Michael takes his own life.
Billy determines to make a difference in Michael's memory and undertakes a public weight-loss campaign, to raise money for suicide prevention--his first step in an ambitious plan to save himself, and to save others. However, Billy's dramatic crusade appalls his family, who want to simply try to go on, quietly, privately.
Despite his crushing detractors, Billy gains welcome allies: his community-at-large; a co-worker who lost his father to suicide; a filmmaker with his own dubious agenda; and a secret, miniature kingdom that Billy populates with the sub-quality dolls and soldiers he saves from disposal at the toy factory where he works. But it is only if Billy can confront the truth of the suffering and brokenness within and around him that he and others will be able to realize the recovery they need.
Told against the backdrop of rural, contemporary Ireland, The Weight of Him is a big-hearted novel about loss and reliance that moves from tragedy to recrimination to what can be achieved when we take the stand of our lives.
This was not a book I’d normally pick up and it came to me in a box subscription. I’m so glad it did it was so beautifully written and dealt with a some important issues suicide, grief , depression, weight loss and lots more. I loved it I didn’t put it down it had such a sad underlying story. Definitely glad it landed on my tbr.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated 2012 (2009) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Roland Emmerich does big budget disaster flicks as well as Dairylea does cheese. However, some of his most recent attempts to dominate the box office have been panned by viewers and critics alike, who say that he has become too reliant on special effects.
Unfortunately, those critics better look away now, as his new film is the biggest yet.
2012 takes place, well, in 2012 for the most part and features an array of big Hollywood names attracted none the less by the huge box office forecasts for the film. The premise is simple; here comes the end of the world and god should we run!
With a reported budget of over $200m which is more than Michael Bay spent on his worldwide smash Transformers: Revenge of the fallen, Emmerich was certainly able to splash out on some eye popping CGI.
2012 reads like The Day After Tomorrow on a steroid, which is no bad thing, but that film had some hideously underdeveloped characters and lacked the depth needed to allow viewers to share compassion for the people who had been affected by the global crisis.
Thankfully it seems that Emmerich has learnt his lesson here and has provided us with a back-story and it comes in many different forms. Thandie Newton and Danny Glover play president’s daughter and president respectively, a great deal of emotion has gone into writing these two characters and their on-screen scenes together, albeit a small amount, are wonderful.
John Cusack and Amanda Peet play divorced parents Jackson and Kate, only united by the love they share for their two young children and predictably later on in the film, a few deeper emotions. Unfortunately these two share no chemistry together and their on-screen scenes are flawed as a result.
2012 doesn’t have a huge deal of character development but it does improve on what was seen in The Day After Tomorrow and more recently, 10,000BC, with a deeper understanding of the characters. It ultimately succeeds in making the viewers share compassion for even the heartless characters in the film.
Moving on to the saving grace of all disaster films; the special effects, fans of major cities being destroyed are going to be pleased here with some eye-watering action pieces really showing why perhaps Emmerich overshadows even Michael Bay and has become the king of destroying anything that can be destroyed. There are a few questionable scenes, which look rather less than realistic, but this is a small point that doesn’t need to be taken into account.
Whilst all this may seem excellent, it all feels familiar, it’s all been seen and done before, so in reality 2012 adds nothing new to the genre which is unfortunate because it really is an excellent film.
Overall, 2012 is a mouth-watering treat in cinema engineering, apart from some lapses in scientific accuracy and some shaky special effects; it surpasses The Day After Tomorrow and similar disaster films by sheer depth. On the downside it adds nothing new to the formula, but if you want sheer popcorn fodder then please, look no further.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2010/10/18/2012-2009/
Unfortunately, those critics better look away now, as his new film is the biggest yet.
2012 takes place, well, in 2012 for the most part and features an array of big Hollywood names attracted none the less by the huge box office forecasts for the film. The premise is simple; here comes the end of the world and god should we run!
With a reported budget of over $200m which is more than Michael Bay spent on his worldwide smash Transformers: Revenge of the fallen, Emmerich was certainly able to splash out on some eye popping CGI.
2012 reads like The Day After Tomorrow on a steroid, which is no bad thing, but that film had some hideously underdeveloped characters and lacked the depth needed to allow viewers to share compassion for the people who had been affected by the global crisis.
Thankfully it seems that Emmerich has learnt his lesson here and has provided us with a back-story and it comes in many different forms. Thandie Newton and Danny Glover play president’s daughter and president respectively, a great deal of emotion has gone into writing these two characters and their on-screen scenes together, albeit a small amount, are wonderful.
John Cusack and Amanda Peet play divorced parents Jackson and Kate, only united by the love they share for their two young children and predictably later on in the film, a few deeper emotions. Unfortunately these two share no chemistry together and their on-screen scenes are flawed as a result.
2012 doesn’t have a huge deal of character development but it does improve on what was seen in The Day After Tomorrow and more recently, 10,000BC, with a deeper understanding of the characters. It ultimately succeeds in making the viewers share compassion for even the heartless characters in the film.
Moving on to the saving grace of all disaster films; the special effects, fans of major cities being destroyed are going to be pleased here with some eye-watering action pieces really showing why perhaps Emmerich overshadows even Michael Bay and has become the king of destroying anything that can be destroyed. There are a few questionable scenes, which look rather less than realistic, but this is a small point that doesn’t need to be taken into account.
Whilst all this may seem excellent, it all feels familiar, it’s all been seen and done before, so in reality 2012 adds nothing new to the genre which is unfortunate because it really is an excellent film.
Overall, 2012 is a mouth-watering treat in cinema engineering, apart from some lapses in scientific accuracy and some shaky special effects; it surpasses The Day After Tomorrow and similar disaster films by sheer depth. On the downside it adds nothing new to the formula, but if you want sheer popcorn fodder then please, look no further.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2010/10/18/2012-2009/
The Negotiation: A BDSM Romance
6.7
Rate It
Book
Sebastian stared at her. Like magic, she now conveyed complete respect and submission. His cock...
Neon's Nerd Nexus (360 KP) rated UglyDolls (2019) in Movies
Aug 16, 2019
u.g.l.y. You ain't got no alibi.
Ugly Dolls is a garish & heartless mess of stolen ideas & mixed messages. Ugly Dolls at its core is a film about being different, believing in yourself, being proud of who you are & the way you look but I found these positive messages to be all very contradictory & one sided. For instance we are told certain types of people are the evil ones because of how they dress, think & behave etc but the message of the film is to not discriminate or judge people so how is slating, stereotyping, victimising, hating & bullying them morally ok? its basically like saying using racism to combat racism is makes it fine. I know its a kids film & most of this will go over their heads but when my little nephew is turning to me questioning which characters are the villains then it must be that obvious its a problem. Now this would all be fine if the film at least looked nice or had interesting set pieces but it doesnt at all. Animation is ugly with texture work that seems lazy & unfinished in parts making what should be vibrant fluffy creatures feel a blurry texturless mess especially around the eyes & mouth areas. Lacking also in any excitement the film most of the time crawls along at a snails pace with lengthy painful sections just there to flesh out its unnecessarily complex plot. When action does start its drab & void of excitement with big scenes shamelessly stolen from films such as toy story 3 & replicated exactly just with less care & budget. While my nephew enjoyed it I could definitely see him becoming restless at times especially when nothing much was happening & talking to him when we left he knew none of the characters names either (usually he wont shut up about the plot, characters & songs after we see a film hyper & grinning from ear to ear but with this film he wasnt). Song wise theres nothing remotley catchy or memorable here & i get the sense the film was just trying to cash in on the success of the greatest showman. All in all its a film thats had minimum effort put into it designed just to sell the McDonalds happy meals it shamelessly promotes just before it starts.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Parasite (2019) in Movies
Apr 10, 2020
Kills You With Intrigue
This is the portion of the review where I usually give a quick synopsis, but I’m not going to do that for Parasite. I want you to go in like I did: Completely and totally blind. It’s so much better that way, trust me on this.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 9
Nice set up for what is to come, especially when you don’t really know what’s coming. You’re introduced to the primary family and get a better understanding of their story. I appreciated how director/writer Bong Joon Ho sets up the intrigue but doesn’t give you too much.
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Parasite is cinematically gorgeous from beginning to end. It gives you a feeling that you are witnessing something you’ve never seen before. I won’t dive too deep into this, but I especially love the cinematic contrast shown between the lower and upper class. Brilliantly done.
Conflict: 10
One minute, you think you’re watching a light comedy. The next, you’re saying, “Holy shit!” The perceived conflict is big enough, but when more gets added to the mix things get extremely out of control. I loved every minute of it.
Entertainment Value: 8
Memorability: 10
As soon as I finished watching Parasite, I immediately looked up who directed Oldboy as the shooting style and varying levels of constant tension felt very similar. Though not the same director, I will say this: If you’ve seen the latter, expect to be just as shocked by the former. Parasite gives you an experience you will never forget.
Pace: 10
Not a dull moment throughout. I spent so much time trying to figure out what the hell was happening that things never got boring, especially during the second half of the movie. There were so many moments of tension, you would be hardpressed to lose interest in the movie.
Plot: 10
Resolution: 1
As phenomenal as the movie is, the ending definitely left a sour taste in my mouth. Wasn’t a fan in the least. In fact, it was the one thing in my mind keeping this from being a classic.
Overall: 88
If you’re planning to see Parasite anytime soon, make sure you go in completely blind. It is memorable beyond belief. Expect it to stay in your mind for a long time after watching it.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 9
Nice set up for what is to come, especially when you don’t really know what’s coming. You’re introduced to the primary family and get a better understanding of their story. I appreciated how director/writer Bong Joon Ho sets up the intrigue but doesn’t give you too much.
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Parasite is cinematically gorgeous from beginning to end. It gives you a feeling that you are witnessing something you’ve never seen before. I won’t dive too deep into this, but I especially love the cinematic contrast shown between the lower and upper class. Brilliantly done.
Conflict: 10
One minute, you think you’re watching a light comedy. The next, you’re saying, “Holy shit!” The perceived conflict is big enough, but when more gets added to the mix things get extremely out of control. I loved every minute of it.
Entertainment Value: 8
Memorability: 10
As soon as I finished watching Parasite, I immediately looked up who directed Oldboy as the shooting style and varying levels of constant tension felt very similar. Though not the same director, I will say this: If you’ve seen the latter, expect to be just as shocked by the former. Parasite gives you an experience you will never forget.
Pace: 10
Not a dull moment throughout. I spent so much time trying to figure out what the hell was happening that things never got boring, especially during the second half of the movie. There were so many moments of tension, you would be hardpressed to lose interest in the movie.
Plot: 10
Resolution: 1
As phenomenal as the movie is, the ending definitely left a sour taste in my mouth. Wasn’t a fan in the least. In fact, it was the one thing in my mind keeping this from being a classic.
Overall: 88
If you’re planning to see Parasite anytime soon, make sure you go in completely blind. It is memorable beyond belief. Expect it to stay in your mind for a long time after watching it.
Henry Rollins recommended National Lampoon's Animal House (1978) in Movies (curated)
Muffins Recipes
Food & Drink and Lifestyle
App
Are you looking to have some different varieties of muffins? We have come up with some mouth...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Table 19 (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Mean spirited and atrocious.
I really hated this film. There. BOOM. Got it off my chest.
It all starts so promisingly, with a scene of Anna Kendrick (“The Accountant“, who can be a very good actress) rejecting a wedding invitation; then accepting it; then burning it; then blowing it out; then posting it. I laughed. This was a rarity. There are about five more smile-worthy moments in the movie, most of which are delivered by Stephen Merchant.
Anna plays Eloise who was SUPPOSED to be maid-of-honour at her best friend’s wedding, but then broke up – messily – with her brother (the best man). She stubbornly attends the wedding in a posh hotel and finds herself on “Table 19” – a socially unfavourable location, full of a bunch of misfits that everyone expected to say “no” but didn’t; a molly-coddled and awkward teen (Tony Revolori, “Spider-man: Homecoming“) with the single goal of getting laid; “The Kepps” – a bickering married couple (Lisa Kudrow (“The Girl on the Train“, “Friends”) and Craig Robinson (“Hot Tub Time Machine”)); a convicted fraudster serving his sentence in an open prison ( Stephen Merchant, “Logan“) and a druggie former nanny of the bride (June Squibb, “In and Out”).
The fundamental problem with the movie is that Jeffrey Blitz’s script (he also directs) is not only not very funny, but it is so fundamentally focused on the greedy and needy nature of the table’s American reprobates that at every turn it leaves a bad taste in the mouth. Their motives are all utterly selfish and there’s an “if we get away with it, then that’s fine” attitude that pervades the plot.
The nadir for me happens when – after trashing (albeit accidently) a key part of the wedding they are attending, they cover their selfish backsides by (deliberately) trashing the same key part of another wedding going on in the same hotel.
This is kind of positioned as a “revenge” sort of thing, but (in analysis) no wrong seems to have actually been done: its just another misunderstanding of the self-obsessed Eloise.
The Kepp’s story is also sad and selfish rather than comedic, and the resolution of this (and in fact all of the other sub-stories) for a nicely gift-wrapped ending is just saccharine and vomit-inducing.
This is a wedding present that should have come with a label in big red writing: “DO NOT OPEN“.
It all starts so promisingly, with a scene of Anna Kendrick (“The Accountant“, who can be a very good actress) rejecting a wedding invitation; then accepting it; then burning it; then blowing it out; then posting it. I laughed. This was a rarity. There are about five more smile-worthy moments in the movie, most of which are delivered by Stephen Merchant.
Anna plays Eloise who was SUPPOSED to be maid-of-honour at her best friend’s wedding, but then broke up – messily – with her brother (the best man). She stubbornly attends the wedding in a posh hotel and finds herself on “Table 19” – a socially unfavourable location, full of a bunch of misfits that everyone expected to say “no” but didn’t; a molly-coddled and awkward teen (Tony Revolori, “Spider-man: Homecoming“) with the single goal of getting laid; “The Kepps” – a bickering married couple (Lisa Kudrow (“The Girl on the Train“, “Friends”) and Craig Robinson (“Hot Tub Time Machine”)); a convicted fraudster serving his sentence in an open prison ( Stephen Merchant, “Logan“) and a druggie former nanny of the bride (June Squibb, “In and Out”).
The fundamental problem with the movie is that Jeffrey Blitz’s script (he also directs) is not only not very funny, but it is so fundamentally focused on the greedy and needy nature of the table’s American reprobates that at every turn it leaves a bad taste in the mouth. Their motives are all utterly selfish and there’s an “if we get away with it, then that’s fine” attitude that pervades the plot.
The nadir for me happens when – after trashing (albeit accidently) a key part of the wedding they are attending, they cover their selfish backsides by (deliberately) trashing the same key part of another wedding going on in the same hotel.
This is kind of positioned as a “revenge” sort of thing, but (in analysis) no wrong seems to have actually been done: its just another misunderstanding of the self-obsessed Eloise.
The Kepp’s story is also sad and selfish rather than comedic, and the resolution of this (and in fact all of the other sub-stories) for a nicely gift-wrapped ending is just saccharine and vomit-inducing.
This is a wedding present that should have come with a label in big red writing: “DO NOT OPEN“.
Connor Sheffield (293 KP) rated An American Werewolf in London (1981) in Movies
Jun 4, 2017
Steps away from most of the stereotypes (2 more)
Comedic Horror
Great practical effects for the time, even better than some modern day films
One of the classic Werewolf Films that any horror fan should watch
An American Werewolf in London should always be apart of any Werewolf film or horror film Fan's collection. It's comedic, yes, but it's still a great horror as well especially for it's time.
The cast isn't full of big Hollywood names, but that's what makes this film so good. You don't expect anything from the cast so the film shows you something like you've never seen. Though there are a few cast members that have big names such as Rik Mayall (R.I.P), but he isn't a main cast member, and serves only as a background character in a pub.
The story of two Americans, on a tour of England, with some comedic humour towards the atmosphere of England as we begin the film in the countryside. David's friend complains about the weather, whilst David himself is enjoying his time being out in the open.
The films practical effects are incredible, from the large wolf itself to the actual transformation, which sees limbs being extended into unnatural form, and David's mouth extending into a about, using only practical effects and no CGI. This is what makes this film so damn good!
The soundtrack is one of the cheeriest IV heard for a horror film as it contains multiple versions of the classic song Blue Moon, as well as Creedance Clearwater Revival's classic song Bad Moon Rising. Which eases some of the horror but not by much.
The film also differs from other werewolf films as it mocks the supernatural myth elements such as silver bullets, but includes some of the lesser known myths about the pre-transformation period such as the bizarre nightmares which often involve the cursed being to see themselves naked in a woods stalking and sometimes eating an animal raw, often deer or rabbit, and this film includes that as well as another very bizarre nightmare involving Nazi Demons.
The other great aspect to this film is the appearance of Dave's dead friend throughout the film, as we discover he is trapped in purgatory unable to pass on until the curse is lifted (a.k.a David needs to die). It's not the fact that Jack appears though that makes this element of the film incredible, it's the way he looks when he appears. Everytime Jack shows up, his body is more and more decayed and he becomes very zombiefied during our last encounter with him in the film, and the practical effects and makeup truly add to the grim reality of this aspect. The makeup was so grim in fact, that Griffin Dunne, who portrays Jack, wasn't overly pleased that this gruesome makeup would mean that his mother wouldn't be able to watch the film because it was that horrifying. There were even pieces of dangling rotten flesh, which was accidental but left in because it looked more realistic.
The film is funny, it's gripping and it's horrifying as we watch the beast stalk the people of London and then the next morning, we see a normal man and as we begin to watch him lose his mind, we sympathise for him.
Highly recommend this to any horror fan of you haven't seen it already, and if you haven't...why not? It's brilliantly written and brilliantly directed by the amazing John Landis.
The cast isn't full of big Hollywood names, but that's what makes this film so good. You don't expect anything from the cast so the film shows you something like you've never seen. Though there are a few cast members that have big names such as Rik Mayall (R.I.P), but he isn't a main cast member, and serves only as a background character in a pub.
The story of two Americans, on a tour of England, with some comedic humour towards the atmosphere of England as we begin the film in the countryside. David's friend complains about the weather, whilst David himself is enjoying his time being out in the open.
The films practical effects are incredible, from the large wolf itself to the actual transformation, which sees limbs being extended into unnatural form, and David's mouth extending into a about, using only practical effects and no CGI. This is what makes this film so damn good!
The soundtrack is one of the cheeriest IV heard for a horror film as it contains multiple versions of the classic song Blue Moon, as well as Creedance Clearwater Revival's classic song Bad Moon Rising. Which eases some of the horror but not by much.
The film also differs from other werewolf films as it mocks the supernatural myth elements such as silver bullets, but includes some of the lesser known myths about the pre-transformation period such as the bizarre nightmares which often involve the cursed being to see themselves naked in a woods stalking and sometimes eating an animal raw, often deer or rabbit, and this film includes that as well as another very bizarre nightmare involving Nazi Demons.
The other great aspect to this film is the appearance of Dave's dead friend throughout the film, as we discover he is trapped in purgatory unable to pass on until the curse is lifted (a.k.a David needs to die). It's not the fact that Jack appears though that makes this element of the film incredible, it's the way he looks when he appears. Everytime Jack shows up, his body is more and more decayed and he becomes very zombiefied during our last encounter with him in the film, and the practical effects and makeup truly add to the grim reality of this aspect. The makeup was so grim in fact, that Griffin Dunne, who portrays Jack, wasn't overly pleased that this gruesome makeup would mean that his mother wouldn't be able to watch the film because it was that horrifying. There were even pieces of dangling rotten flesh, which was accidental but left in because it looked more realistic.
The film is funny, it's gripping and it's horrifying as we watch the beast stalk the people of London and then the next morning, we see a normal man and as we begin to watch him lose his mind, we sympathise for him.
Highly recommend this to any horror fan of you haven't seen it already, and if you haven't...why not? It's brilliantly written and brilliantly directed by the amazing John Landis.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Kong: Skull Island (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Beauty and the Beast
The fact that Legendary Pictures are busying themselves with an epic Godzilla vs King Kong showdown is one of the worst kept secrets in Hollywood. Naturally, this presented a problem for Peter Jackson’s Kong who simply doesn’t measure up against the giant lizard in 2013’s Godzilla.
And in Hollywood, size really does matter; therefore the monstrous ape has been given a monumental upgrade featuring an all-star cast and some serious talent behind the camera. But is Kong: Skull Island as bananas as its trailers would suggest? Or are we looking at something a little more mainstream?
At the climax of the Vietnam War, a team of explorers and mercenaries head to an unchartered island in the South Pacific in an effort to document its inhabitants. Little do they know they are crossing into the domain of vicious man-eating monsters and the legendary Kong.
With a cast that includes Tom Hiddleston, Brie Larson, John Goodman, Samuel L Jackson and John C Reilly, you’d be forgiven for thinking everything is hunky dory over on Skull Island, but this spectacular film isn’t without its flaws. A lack of character development and a severe tonal imbalance mean it’s a beautiful near miss that thankfully manages to pull itself up from a crash landing.
Jordan Vogt-Roberts in his first big budget feature directs a film that is absolutely staggering to watch, with stunning cinematography and exceptionally well-choreographed battles between the gigantic ape and his many adversaries. Giving indie directors the chance to work with big studios to produce blockbusters is something that seems incredibly popular at the moment.
After all, Gareth Edwards took up the challenge of rebooting Godzilla in 2013 with stunning results and Colin Trevorrow was entrusted by Steven Spielberg to rekindle the public’s love affair with Jurassic Park back in 2015 and that worked a treat too.
Here, Vogt-Roberts utilises both of those franchises to great effect, even managing to shoehorn a tasteful reference to Samuel L Jackson’s Jurassic Park character, Ray Arnold. Elsewhere, though, the film falls a little flat. The constant switch in tone from comedy to action leaves a sour taste in the mouth, though John C Reilly’s stranded pilot is a pleasure to watch and lightens up proceedings.
Tom Hiddleston does well in the leading role, though as an SAS operative, he feels a little miscast and Samuel L Jackson’s Preston Packard is immensely dislikeable and his gripe with Kong is forced. It creates a subplot that doesn’t really need to be there.
The special effects, however, are top notch, helped by the splendid cinematography. The gorgeous sunsets and sweeping tropical landscapes have a whiff of Apocalypse Now and the misty terrain brings back memories of Jurassic Park’s first sequel, The Lost World.
Overall, Kong: Skull Island is a stunning film filled to the brim with colour, charming effects and great performances. However, it is a little light on character development and that tone issue is frustrating at times, but as a precursor to a mighty monster battle, it does a fine job in continuing the franchise and setting its future.
Leaving the cinema, though, I was left with a concern for when the two behemoths, Godzilla and Kong, finally meet. Each film has given their respective creature a ‘personality’, and if one of them must inevitably die, who on earth do you choose to perish?
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/03/10/beauty-and-the-beast-kong-skull-island-review/
And in Hollywood, size really does matter; therefore the monstrous ape has been given a monumental upgrade featuring an all-star cast and some serious talent behind the camera. But is Kong: Skull Island as bananas as its trailers would suggest? Or are we looking at something a little more mainstream?
At the climax of the Vietnam War, a team of explorers and mercenaries head to an unchartered island in the South Pacific in an effort to document its inhabitants. Little do they know they are crossing into the domain of vicious man-eating monsters and the legendary Kong.
With a cast that includes Tom Hiddleston, Brie Larson, John Goodman, Samuel L Jackson and John C Reilly, you’d be forgiven for thinking everything is hunky dory over on Skull Island, but this spectacular film isn’t without its flaws. A lack of character development and a severe tonal imbalance mean it’s a beautiful near miss that thankfully manages to pull itself up from a crash landing.
Jordan Vogt-Roberts in his first big budget feature directs a film that is absolutely staggering to watch, with stunning cinematography and exceptionally well-choreographed battles between the gigantic ape and his many adversaries. Giving indie directors the chance to work with big studios to produce blockbusters is something that seems incredibly popular at the moment.
After all, Gareth Edwards took up the challenge of rebooting Godzilla in 2013 with stunning results and Colin Trevorrow was entrusted by Steven Spielberg to rekindle the public’s love affair with Jurassic Park back in 2015 and that worked a treat too.
Here, Vogt-Roberts utilises both of those franchises to great effect, even managing to shoehorn a tasteful reference to Samuel L Jackson’s Jurassic Park character, Ray Arnold. Elsewhere, though, the film falls a little flat. The constant switch in tone from comedy to action leaves a sour taste in the mouth, though John C Reilly’s stranded pilot is a pleasure to watch and lightens up proceedings.
Tom Hiddleston does well in the leading role, though as an SAS operative, he feels a little miscast and Samuel L Jackson’s Preston Packard is immensely dislikeable and his gripe with Kong is forced. It creates a subplot that doesn’t really need to be there.
The special effects, however, are top notch, helped by the splendid cinematography. The gorgeous sunsets and sweeping tropical landscapes have a whiff of Apocalypse Now and the misty terrain brings back memories of Jurassic Park’s first sequel, The Lost World.
Overall, Kong: Skull Island is a stunning film filled to the brim with colour, charming effects and great performances. However, it is a little light on character development and that tone issue is frustrating at times, but as a precursor to a mighty monster battle, it does a fine job in continuing the franchise and setting its future.
Leaving the cinema, though, I was left with a concern for when the two behemoths, Godzilla and Kong, finally meet. Each film has given their respective creature a ‘personality’, and if one of them must inevitably die, who on earth do you choose to perish?
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/03/10/beauty-and-the-beast-kong-skull-island-review/