Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated King Kong (2005) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Following up the box office and Oscar success of the Lord of the Rings Trilogy is an undertaking that is sure to have its dangers. Expectations of the fans notwithstanding, the ability to recapture the magic of the trilogy could be akin to capturing lightning in a bottle. When it was announced that Peter Jackson would follow his Oscar success by doing yet another adaptation of King Kong, there were plenty of questions amidst the excitement.
When an earlier remake was a critical and commercial bomb, “Would Jackson be able to do justice to one of the all time classics?” was one of the biggest questions. When it was announced that comedian Jack Black would be in the film, people began to wonder what Jackson had brewing. Black, as well as Academy Award winner Adrian Brody were seen as offbeat choices. As the release date for the film neared, so did speculation over the look of the film, the running time, and its decision to follow the screenplay of the original rather than adapt to a modern setting.
The film follows a filmmaker named Carl Denham (Jack Black), who in an act of desperation flees New York for a mysterious and uncharted island in an attempt to finish his latest movie before the studio can shut him down. Amidst the backdrop of the Great Depression, it is clear that Denham knows that failure now could be the end of his livelihood and his long term future. As he embarks on his fly by night production, Denham encounters Ann Darrow (Naomi Watts), a recently unemployed Vaudeville performer who is enticed into the film in the hopes of meeting its writer Jack Driscoll (Adrian Brody). It seems that Ann has long coveted a part in Driscoll’s plays and hopes that by meeting him, she will obtain her long sought after audition.
With the cops and studio hot on their heels, the cast and crew board a tramp steamer named “The Venture” as they set off for the mysterious island that is known only to Denham via a mysterious map he obtained through methods unknown.
As the voyage unwinds, not only does Denham get the chance to film segments of the film, but Ann and a stranded Jack find themselves becoming an item. Jack is inspired by Ann, and he works like a man inspired turning out page after page of material for various projects which he hopes Ann will star.
Eventually the ship finds its way to the mysterious Skull Island surrounded in fog, and the crew venture ashore to take in the bizarre and exotic land that has previously been unexplored. Upon finding a fortified wall and settlement the crew has a run in with some dangerous natives which in turn leads to Ann being kidnapped and offered up sacrificial style to a gigantic creature the Islanders refer to as Kong. Undaunted, Jack and the crew set off to rescue Ann while Denham shoots footage along the way, as the island offers visuals the likes of which have never been seen by mankind.
Along the way, the crew encounters deadly creatures and obstacles at every turn, as does Ann who plays a dangerous game of cat and mouse with Kong as she comes to grips with her situation. Kong is taken with the lovely Ann and protects her against numerous dangers including a pack of Tyrannosauruses in one of the film’s best action sequences.
Of course few will be surprised at the final act of the film so I will leave it to say that the fish out of water nature of the previous versions remains intact as Kong finds himself dealing with an urban jungle which leads to a spectacular finale atop the Empire State Building.
In many ways Jackson’s film is three separate films. The first hour of the film is an interesting and, at times witty, character piece where the lead characters assemble. The look of the city is amazing, making it very clear that enormous amounts of effort went into crafting the look of Depression Era New York, and to remind the audience that Prohibition was also in effect. The interplay between the characters is decent.Black does standout work as the slick Denham, as does Watts as the wholesome and lovable Ann.
The second hour of the film is the special effects showcase where the mysteries of Skull Island and Kong are shown complete with all manner of CGI creatures and action sequences. While most of them are well staged, I could not help but note that on more than one occasion the CGI backdrops did not match up well with their live action counterparts. There is one scene of a stampede where it looked like the actors had been drawn in and that they were running in place as they clearly did not mesh with the spectacle behind them.
Throughout the film this occurrence happened more and more which really had me wondering if the effects house was overtaxed. A film with a budget reportedly over 100 million should not have these technical issues. Thankfully Kong himself is a wonder, with everything from his expressive eyes and facial features, captured in a remarkable way. It is just a shame that the other effects did not get the same treatment as the films namesake, as he truly is a site to behold. Andy Serkis who did the character mannerisms for the animators program did a phenomenal job. The movements of Kong progress with a strength and agility that bellies a simian rather than a skilled performer.
I do not want it to sound as if I did not enjoy the film, as much of the film worked very well, technical issues aside. What my biggest issue with the film was that at over 3 Hours, it was far too long for the material to support. We get numerous scenes of Ann and Kong flirting, bonding, fighting, running, and more. What is cute the first couple of times becomes dull the more it is repeated. It is obvious that they have a bond; we do not need to see it over and over ad nauseum to get the message. Also, the character development and interplay between the characters that was so effective in the first part of the film all but vanishes amidst the effects.
The finale of the film is a rousing success as the daring visuals and camera angles are very inventive and thrilling. This segment with its fury of motion and sound will have viewers on the edge of their seat as it certainly delivers the goods. The biggest issue again is having to sit through three hours to get to it. Anyone who has seen either version of Kong knows exactly where the film is heading, and after two hours of screen time I found myself wishing they would just hurry up and get to it.
Jackson has crafted a very entertaining and lavish film that packs its share of thrills. What the film needed is someone to reign in Jackson and his boundless enthusiasm for the project to remind him that sometimes less is more. Jackson has said that he had over 4 hours worth of material filmed but trimmed it down to its current running time. When the film is almost twice the running time of the original, I found myself thinking that minus 45 minutes the same story could have been told.
Despite the flaws and the hype, King Kong is a solid film that for me was more satisfying in many ways than any of the “Rings” films. While not quite a masterpiece, this Kong is worthy of the name and pedigree of the timeless original that inspired it.
When an earlier remake was a critical and commercial bomb, “Would Jackson be able to do justice to one of the all time classics?” was one of the biggest questions. When it was announced that comedian Jack Black would be in the film, people began to wonder what Jackson had brewing. Black, as well as Academy Award winner Adrian Brody were seen as offbeat choices. As the release date for the film neared, so did speculation over the look of the film, the running time, and its decision to follow the screenplay of the original rather than adapt to a modern setting.
The film follows a filmmaker named Carl Denham (Jack Black), who in an act of desperation flees New York for a mysterious and uncharted island in an attempt to finish his latest movie before the studio can shut him down. Amidst the backdrop of the Great Depression, it is clear that Denham knows that failure now could be the end of his livelihood and his long term future. As he embarks on his fly by night production, Denham encounters Ann Darrow (Naomi Watts), a recently unemployed Vaudeville performer who is enticed into the film in the hopes of meeting its writer Jack Driscoll (Adrian Brody). It seems that Ann has long coveted a part in Driscoll’s plays and hopes that by meeting him, she will obtain her long sought after audition.
With the cops and studio hot on their heels, the cast and crew board a tramp steamer named “The Venture” as they set off for the mysterious island that is known only to Denham via a mysterious map he obtained through methods unknown.
As the voyage unwinds, not only does Denham get the chance to film segments of the film, but Ann and a stranded Jack find themselves becoming an item. Jack is inspired by Ann, and he works like a man inspired turning out page after page of material for various projects which he hopes Ann will star.
Eventually the ship finds its way to the mysterious Skull Island surrounded in fog, and the crew venture ashore to take in the bizarre and exotic land that has previously been unexplored. Upon finding a fortified wall and settlement the crew has a run in with some dangerous natives which in turn leads to Ann being kidnapped and offered up sacrificial style to a gigantic creature the Islanders refer to as Kong. Undaunted, Jack and the crew set off to rescue Ann while Denham shoots footage along the way, as the island offers visuals the likes of which have never been seen by mankind.
Along the way, the crew encounters deadly creatures and obstacles at every turn, as does Ann who plays a dangerous game of cat and mouse with Kong as she comes to grips with her situation. Kong is taken with the lovely Ann and protects her against numerous dangers including a pack of Tyrannosauruses in one of the film’s best action sequences.
Of course few will be surprised at the final act of the film so I will leave it to say that the fish out of water nature of the previous versions remains intact as Kong finds himself dealing with an urban jungle which leads to a spectacular finale atop the Empire State Building.
In many ways Jackson’s film is three separate films. The first hour of the film is an interesting and, at times witty, character piece where the lead characters assemble. The look of the city is amazing, making it very clear that enormous amounts of effort went into crafting the look of Depression Era New York, and to remind the audience that Prohibition was also in effect. The interplay between the characters is decent.Black does standout work as the slick Denham, as does Watts as the wholesome and lovable Ann.
The second hour of the film is the special effects showcase where the mysteries of Skull Island and Kong are shown complete with all manner of CGI creatures and action sequences. While most of them are well staged, I could not help but note that on more than one occasion the CGI backdrops did not match up well with their live action counterparts. There is one scene of a stampede where it looked like the actors had been drawn in and that they were running in place as they clearly did not mesh with the spectacle behind them.
Throughout the film this occurrence happened more and more which really had me wondering if the effects house was overtaxed. A film with a budget reportedly over 100 million should not have these technical issues. Thankfully Kong himself is a wonder, with everything from his expressive eyes and facial features, captured in a remarkable way. It is just a shame that the other effects did not get the same treatment as the films namesake, as he truly is a site to behold. Andy Serkis who did the character mannerisms for the animators program did a phenomenal job. The movements of Kong progress with a strength and agility that bellies a simian rather than a skilled performer.
I do not want it to sound as if I did not enjoy the film, as much of the film worked very well, technical issues aside. What my biggest issue with the film was that at over 3 Hours, it was far too long for the material to support. We get numerous scenes of Ann and Kong flirting, bonding, fighting, running, and more. What is cute the first couple of times becomes dull the more it is repeated. It is obvious that they have a bond; we do not need to see it over and over ad nauseum to get the message. Also, the character development and interplay between the characters that was so effective in the first part of the film all but vanishes amidst the effects.
The finale of the film is a rousing success as the daring visuals and camera angles are very inventive and thrilling. This segment with its fury of motion and sound will have viewers on the edge of their seat as it certainly delivers the goods. The biggest issue again is having to sit through three hours to get to it. Anyone who has seen either version of Kong knows exactly where the film is heading, and after two hours of screen time I found myself wishing they would just hurry up and get to it.
Jackson has crafted a very entertaining and lavish film that packs its share of thrills. What the film needed is someone to reign in Jackson and his boundless enthusiasm for the project to remind him that sometimes less is more. Jackson has said that he had over 4 hours worth of material filmed but trimmed it down to its current running time. When the film is almost twice the running time of the original, I found myself thinking that minus 45 minutes the same story could have been told.
Despite the flaws and the hype, King Kong is a solid film that for me was more satisfying in many ways than any of the “Rings” films. While not quite a masterpiece, this Kong is worthy of the name and pedigree of the timeless original that inspired it.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Legend of Tarzan (2016) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
CPR Needed
As tends to be the case with Hollywood, studios pay very close attention to their rivals release schedules, eyeing up potential competition to pit their films against, maxing box-office returns in the process.
And when Disney announced they were rebooting The Jungle Book in March this year, Warner Bros quickly responded with another jungle-themed film; The Legend of Tarzan. But does this interpretation on the classic character swing or fall?
It’s been nearly a decade since Tarzan (Alexander Skarsgård), aka John Clayton III, left Africa to live in Victorian England with his wife Jane (Margot Robbie). Danger lurks on the horizon as Leon Rom (Christoph Waltz), a treacherous envoy for King Leopold, devises a scheme that lures the couple and friend George Williams (Samuel L Jackson) to the Congo. Rom plans to capture Tarzan and deliver him to an old enemy in exchange for diamonds. When Jane becomes a pawn in his devious plot, Tarzan must return to the jungle to save the woman he loves.
Directed by David Yates (Harry Potter & the Deathly Hallows), Legend of Tarzan features committed performances from its lead cast, immersive scenery and impressive special effects, but all of the glitz can’t save a film that plods along at a dreadful pace. Not since Peter Jackson’s King Kong has there been a movie that wastes so much of its opening act.
Alexander Skarsgård is likeable and commanding as the titular character, but lacks enough acting prowess to tackle the deeper, more emotional side that writers Adam Cozad and Craig Brewer have brought to the table here. Therefore, the scenes featuring a solo Tarzan suffer somewhat and Samuel L Jackson feels wasted in a poorly written and half-hearted role.
It is in Margot Robbie and Christoph Waltz that we find the film’s saving graces. Their characters leap off the screen with Waltz in particular being a highlight throughout. It’s unfortunate that one of our greatest living actors is lambasted with poor dialogue however, though the script just about keeps him afloat.
David Yates brings a similar filming style here to that of his foray into Harry Potter. The action is confidently filmed, but he avoids the use of shaky-cam that many directors seem to find appealing nowadays. The CGI is on the whole very good, especially in the finale which is breath-taking to watch.
It’s just a shame the rest of the film is such a drag. The first hour is incredibly poorly paced with very brief, albeit well-filmed, action sequences not doing enough to brighten Legend of Tarzan up. Elsewhere, the use of flashbacks is at first a decent way of giving the audience some exposition, but after the tenth one, they’re a nuisance.
Overall, The Legend of Tarzan does a lot more with its iconic character than other films have done, but that doesn’t excuse its poor pacing. Thankfully, the exciting finale lifts the final act above the standard of the first hour, and commanding performances from all the cast sustain interest just about enough to see it through to the end.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/07/07/cpr-needed-the-legend-of-tarzan-review/
And when Disney announced they were rebooting The Jungle Book in March this year, Warner Bros quickly responded with another jungle-themed film; The Legend of Tarzan. But does this interpretation on the classic character swing or fall?
It’s been nearly a decade since Tarzan (Alexander Skarsgård), aka John Clayton III, left Africa to live in Victorian England with his wife Jane (Margot Robbie). Danger lurks on the horizon as Leon Rom (Christoph Waltz), a treacherous envoy for King Leopold, devises a scheme that lures the couple and friend George Williams (Samuel L Jackson) to the Congo. Rom plans to capture Tarzan and deliver him to an old enemy in exchange for diamonds. When Jane becomes a pawn in his devious plot, Tarzan must return to the jungle to save the woman he loves.
Directed by David Yates (Harry Potter & the Deathly Hallows), Legend of Tarzan features committed performances from its lead cast, immersive scenery and impressive special effects, but all of the glitz can’t save a film that plods along at a dreadful pace. Not since Peter Jackson’s King Kong has there been a movie that wastes so much of its opening act.
Alexander Skarsgård is likeable and commanding as the titular character, but lacks enough acting prowess to tackle the deeper, more emotional side that writers Adam Cozad and Craig Brewer have brought to the table here. Therefore, the scenes featuring a solo Tarzan suffer somewhat and Samuel L Jackson feels wasted in a poorly written and half-hearted role.
It is in Margot Robbie and Christoph Waltz that we find the film’s saving graces. Their characters leap off the screen with Waltz in particular being a highlight throughout. It’s unfortunate that one of our greatest living actors is lambasted with poor dialogue however, though the script just about keeps him afloat.
David Yates brings a similar filming style here to that of his foray into Harry Potter. The action is confidently filmed, but he avoids the use of shaky-cam that many directors seem to find appealing nowadays. The CGI is on the whole very good, especially in the finale which is breath-taking to watch.
It’s just a shame the rest of the film is such a drag. The first hour is incredibly poorly paced with very brief, albeit well-filmed, action sequences not doing enough to brighten Legend of Tarzan up. Elsewhere, the use of flashbacks is at first a decent way of giving the audience some exposition, but after the tenth one, they’re a nuisance.
Overall, The Legend of Tarzan does a lot more with its iconic character than other films have done, but that doesn’t excuse its poor pacing. Thankfully, the exciting finale lifts the final act above the standard of the first hour, and commanding performances from all the cast sustain interest just about enough to see it through to the end.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/07/07/cpr-needed-the-legend-of-tarzan-review/
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Mortal Engines (2018) in Movies
Jul 2, 2019
Take a moment and imagine a world where most of humanity has been wiped off the map and those that remain are forced to survive on the remaining resources of a civilization that has been torn apart. In this new existence, leftover technology is coveted like diamonds and massive predator cities prey on weaker smaller cities to steal whatever meager resources they still possess. This is the world of Mortal Engines, the latest Peter Jackson blockbuster based on the young adult novel of the same name by Philip Reeves.
Mortal Engines takes place roughly a thousand years after the conclusion of the Sixty Minute War that decimated the earth and now civilization has banded into two very distinct groups. There are those in the “Traction Cities”, which are behemoth mobile cities that scour what remains of Europe gobbling up smaller cities to convert them and their resources into fuel that keeps the larger cities moving. Then there is the Anti-Traction League, a group that believes in preserving what little resources remain and living in “Traction-less” cities…a.k.a. cities built on land. London is the main Traction City and it is led by Thaddeus Valentine (Hugo Weaving) and his desire to tear down a great wall that is the only barrier between London and the surplus of resources that he so desperately needs.
After London devours one of the smaller cities, we are introduced to Hester Shaw (Hera Hilmar), whose one goal in life is to kill Thaddeus Valentine, the man who murdered her mother. After her failed assassination attempt on his life, she teams up with historian Tom Natsworthy (Robert Sheehan) to not only survive, but also to prevent Valentine’s plan to recreate the war that took down humanity in the first place. This is a big job for the unlikely duo and on top of everything else, Hester is being hunted by a zombie/terminator hybrid named Shrike who wants nothing more than to kill her.
If it sounds like a lot to follow over the course of the two hours and nine-minute run time, you’d be right. In fact, without a lot of backstory which those who have read the novels will really benefit from, it can be a bit too much to take in. It comes across as a combination of Mad Max and the video game Dishonored, but it is lacking an excellent story to back up all of the post-apocalyptic action. That’s not to say that the story is bad, but it is by far the weakest part of the film and a huge missed opportunity to elevate a pretty good movie to the classic Peter Jackson masterpiece status we usually get from him. Considering the genius of Mr. Jackson this movie could have been so much more.
But now on to the good stuff…
Visually speaking Mortal Engines is a true work of art. Taking the steampunk Victorian era backdrop and adding in large mobile cities crashing through trees and forests gives us visuals that are not only magnificent, but also awe inspiring. I was lucky enough to see Mortal Engines in IMAX and the larger screen only helped to emphasize how truly awesome these large rolling cities are. This is a movie that is meant to be seen on the big screen, and with Mortal Engines, the bigger the better. The sound design matches the visuals in its epic scale, as it is loud and menacing. You can actually feel the rumble of the large treads as they move across the earth, and the crunching of smaller cities as the massive cities devour all that crosses their path. The casting and the acting were another positive as the good characters were ones you wanted to root for and the bad characters you hope would get what’s coming to them. All in all, there is quite a bit to like in this film and if nothing else you are sure to have a good time taking in all of the scenery.
In summary, Mortal Engines is a movie that feels as though it had so much potential but couldn’t quite live up to it. It definitely feels more like a summer blockbuster, full of explosions and action, instead of the deeper holiday releases that we usually get around this time. It’s the kind of movie that you go to see for the sheer spectacle of it all as long as you are willing to overlook any plot or story depth. Unfortunately, this leaves the quandary of whether or not it’s worth the full price of admission (or even more if you are planning to see it in IMAX) and my answer to that is…it depends. If you have any interest in seeing it at all then Mortal Engines is definitely a movie you should see on the big screen. On the other hand, it might be worth it to just wait to see it on pay-per-view or Blu-ray even though it may lose a lot of what makes the movie so much fun in the first place. While the movie could have been better, I have definitely seen worse and if the idea of massive rolling cities and steampunk set pieces are your thing, then Mortal Engines is certainly worth a look.
Mortal Engines takes place roughly a thousand years after the conclusion of the Sixty Minute War that decimated the earth and now civilization has banded into two very distinct groups. There are those in the “Traction Cities”, which are behemoth mobile cities that scour what remains of Europe gobbling up smaller cities to convert them and their resources into fuel that keeps the larger cities moving. Then there is the Anti-Traction League, a group that believes in preserving what little resources remain and living in “Traction-less” cities…a.k.a. cities built on land. London is the main Traction City and it is led by Thaddeus Valentine (Hugo Weaving) and his desire to tear down a great wall that is the only barrier between London and the surplus of resources that he so desperately needs.
After London devours one of the smaller cities, we are introduced to Hester Shaw (Hera Hilmar), whose one goal in life is to kill Thaddeus Valentine, the man who murdered her mother. After her failed assassination attempt on his life, she teams up with historian Tom Natsworthy (Robert Sheehan) to not only survive, but also to prevent Valentine’s plan to recreate the war that took down humanity in the first place. This is a big job for the unlikely duo and on top of everything else, Hester is being hunted by a zombie/terminator hybrid named Shrike who wants nothing more than to kill her.
If it sounds like a lot to follow over the course of the two hours and nine-minute run time, you’d be right. In fact, without a lot of backstory which those who have read the novels will really benefit from, it can be a bit too much to take in. It comes across as a combination of Mad Max and the video game Dishonored, but it is lacking an excellent story to back up all of the post-apocalyptic action. That’s not to say that the story is bad, but it is by far the weakest part of the film and a huge missed opportunity to elevate a pretty good movie to the classic Peter Jackson masterpiece status we usually get from him. Considering the genius of Mr. Jackson this movie could have been so much more.
But now on to the good stuff…
Visually speaking Mortal Engines is a true work of art. Taking the steampunk Victorian era backdrop and adding in large mobile cities crashing through trees and forests gives us visuals that are not only magnificent, but also awe inspiring. I was lucky enough to see Mortal Engines in IMAX and the larger screen only helped to emphasize how truly awesome these large rolling cities are. This is a movie that is meant to be seen on the big screen, and with Mortal Engines, the bigger the better. The sound design matches the visuals in its epic scale, as it is loud and menacing. You can actually feel the rumble of the large treads as they move across the earth, and the crunching of smaller cities as the massive cities devour all that crosses their path. The casting and the acting were another positive as the good characters were ones you wanted to root for and the bad characters you hope would get what’s coming to them. All in all, there is quite a bit to like in this film and if nothing else you are sure to have a good time taking in all of the scenery.
In summary, Mortal Engines is a movie that feels as though it had so much potential but couldn’t quite live up to it. It definitely feels more like a summer blockbuster, full of explosions and action, instead of the deeper holiday releases that we usually get around this time. It’s the kind of movie that you go to see for the sheer spectacle of it all as long as you are willing to overlook any plot or story depth. Unfortunately, this leaves the quandary of whether or not it’s worth the full price of admission (or even more if you are planning to see it in IMAX) and my answer to that is…it depends. If you have any interest in seeing it at all then Mortal Engines is definitely a movie you should see on the big screen. On the other hand, it might be worth it to just wait to see it on pay-per-view or Blu-ray even though it may lose a lot of what makes the movie so much fun in the first place. While the movie could have been better, I have definitely seen worse and if the idea of massive rolling cities and steampunk set pieces are your thing, then Mortal Engines is certainly worth a look.
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Spider-Man: Far From Home (2019) in Movies
Jul 2, 2019 (Updated Dec 27, 2019)
The future is bright for the MCU
Contains spoilers, click to show
Far From Home is in a tricky position, coming out a couple of months after Avengers Endgame, having to deal with the fallout out of the Infinity story arc, and also having to follow up a great first entry into the MCU Spider-Man franchise, and it's does a damn fine job.
Tom Holland continues to be a near perfect Peter Parker, and he's surrounded by a charming cast - Zendaya is great as MJ, Jon Favreau is always welcome as Happy, and Samuel L. Jackson does his usual broody Nick Fury, this time going up against the more cooky humour of Peters classmates, and it all works - the humour all lands for the most part (and as Curb Your Enthusiasm fan, I couldn't help but enjoy JB Smoove).
But the shining star in Far From Home is of course Jake Gyllenhaal. His portrayal of Quentin Beck/Mysterio is great - watching him go from a sad and scarred man, looking to save the world and be Peters friend, to the eventual (and of course expected) reveal that he's actually a calculating-genius-maniac is pretty great.
The set pieces to begin with are standard Marvel fun, but the first time Spider-Man goes head to head with Mysterio and his illusions is ok another level (zombie Iron Man anyone!?) - it feels lifted straight from the comics, and is a visual treat, knocking down Doctor Strange in terms of crazy hallucinating sequences. It's perfect!
It's also a lovely touch just how much Tony Stark has to do in this film - his character may be gone but his presence is constant throughout.
And to top everything off - the first post credit scene includes a unexpected come back that made me grin from ear to ear, and then the second one, well that was just nuts - needless to say, I'm truly excited for what comes next in the MCU.
Far From Home is fun, visually thrilling, with great cast, and for me, is up there with the top tier MCU films.
Tom Holland continues to be a near perfect Peter Parker, and he's surrounded by a charming cast - Zendaya is great as MJ, Jon Favreau is always welcome as Happy, and Samuel L. Jackson does his usual broody Nick Fury, this time going up against the more cooky humour of Peters classmates, and it all works - the humour all lands for the most part (and as Curb Your Enthusiasm fan, I couldn't help but enjoy JB Smoove).
But the shining star in Far From Home is of course Jake Gyllenhaal. His portrayal of Quentin Beck/Mysterio is great - watching him go from a sad and scarred man, looking to save the world and be Peters friend, to the eventual (and of course expected) reveal that he's actually a calculating-genius-maniac is pretty great.
The set pieces to begin with are standard Marvel fun, but the first time Spider-Man goes head to head with Mysterio and his illusions is ok another level (zombie Iron Man anyone!?) - it feels lifted straight from the comics, and is a visual treat, knocking down Doctor Strange in terms of crazy hallucinating sequences. It's perfect!
It's also a lovely touch just how much Tony Stark has to do in this film - his character may be gone but his presence is constant throughout.
And to top everything off - the first post credit scene includes a unexpected come back that made me grin from ear to ear, and then the second one, well that was just nuts - needless to say, I'm truly excited for what comes next in the MCU.
Far From Home is fun, visually thrilling, with great cast, and for me, is up there with the top tier MCU films.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Following the Lord of the Rings Trilogy was going to be no easy feat. The series not only made incredible amounts of cash at the box office worldwide, but also garnered an Academy award for best picture for the final film in the series. In the years since the trilogy, writer-director-producer Peter Jackson has not overwhelmed at the box office. His big-budget remake of “King Kong” performed below expectations and the high-profile collapse of the “Halo” movie to which he was attached, as well as the underwhelming box office of “The Lovely Bones” made many people question if Jackson had peaked and was better suited for the lower budgeted independent films that first gave him his start.
When it was announced that a film version of “The Hobbit” was in the works and that director Guillermo del Toro would direct the film as well as help write the screenplay and that Jackson would produce, the fans’ interest level was definitely piqued. But after a long state of pre-production, del Torro decided not to direct the film as he was unwilling to commit the next six years to living and working in New Zealand. Jackson then took over the film and soon after it was announced that it would be stretched into three movies to form a new trilogy.
For those unfamiliar with the story it was actually the first book written by J.R.R. Tolkien, which sets the stage for what was to follow in the Lord of the Rings even though it was originally conceived as a standalone story. The film opens with an older Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman), writing a memoir while preparations for a party are underway. Bilbo discusses how there was one story that he had not disclosed and sets pen to paper in order to chronicle his legendary journey 60 years prior.
Gandolf Wizard (Sir Ian McKellen) visits the younger Bilbo and suggests he go on an adventure. Bilbo immediately declines, as being a Hobbit, he has no desire to leave the creature comforts and serenity of The Shire, much less face the dangers that exist in the world beyond. A group of dwarves arrive’ that evening and despite their gluttonous appetites and loud behavior, Bilbo has a change of heart the following morning and accompanies them on their quest.
The group’s goal is to travel to the dwarves’ kingdom of Erebor to reclaim their stronghold which was lost many years earlier to a vicious Dragon named Smaug. In the decades since, the dwarves existed as people without a home, forced to live as nomads taking work wherever they can find it. Along the way the group deals with all manner of threats and dangers ranging from trolls, goblins, orcs, and other supernatural elements. Of course there were some internal tensions and conflicts within the group as it marched towards a finale that sets the stage for the next film.
The movie has a runtime of nearly 3 hours and there were times that I caught a couple members in press row dozing briefly. While I enjoyed the film more than I did any of the Lord of the Rings movies, it was clearly obvious that things were being stretched out in order to justify a third film in the series. There were countless scenes of the band walking over hills and across the countryside so much so that at times I felt that I was watching the longest commercial for New Zealand tourism ever created. We get it. It’s a long journey. They travel near and far. I got it. I don’t need to see it every 10 minutes.
There were also several scenes that were done almost as if in aside that truthfully did not add much to the story but seem to exist as nothing more than time fillers. In the subsequent films it is learned that characters and scenes that did not appear in the book will be inserted into the film. Once again I have to question this as I do believe they could have easily cut an hour out of this movie and not lose much of the necessary narrative.
There’s been a lot of talk about the higher frame rate 3-D that was used to create the film. There have been claims that it was distracting, jerky, and detracted from the movie. I on the other hand found it absolutely captivating because it did not have that movie look to it, and it felt like I was watching an HD television. Even during the CGI heavy sequences, it did appear as if the performers were literally right there in front of me and I got the impression more of watching a play than of watching a movie.
The visual effects in the film were quite stunning. The live-action and computer-generated elements were absolutely amazing, especially during the latter part of the film when we meet Gollum (Andy Serkis), and during the battle and the goblin stronghold. Although the book is considered a children’s novel, I would really have to think twice about bringing young children to see this film as there is a lot of action and violence in the film as well as potential scares in the form of the monsters that abound.
The film could have definitely used some star power to it. While the cast does a solid job, they are fairly generic and almost interchangeable during certain segments of the film. That being said, the film works because despite its issues, it’s a visually spectacular masterpiece that, if you can endure the long periods of inaction, pays off especially well during the film’s battle sequences.
When it was announced that a film version of “The Hobbit” was in the works and that director Guillermo del Toro would direct the film as well as help write the screenplay and that Jackson would produce, the fans’ interest level was definitely piqued. But after a long state of pre-production, del Torro decided not to direct the film as he was unwilling to commit the next six years to living and working in New Zealand. Jackson then took over the film and soon after it was announced that it would be stretched into three movies to form a new trilogy.
For those unfamiliar with the story it was actually the first book written by J.R.R. Tolkien, which sets the stage for what was to follow in the Lord of the Rings even though it was originally conceived as a standalone story. The film opens with an older Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman), writing a memoir while preparations for a party are underway. Bilbo discusses how there was one story that he had not disclosed and sets pen to paper in order to chronicle his legendary journey 60 years prior.
Gandolf Wizard (Sir Ian McKellen) visits the younger Bilbo and suggests he go on an adventure. Bilbo immediately declines, as being a Hobbit, he has no desire to leave the creature comforts and serenity of The Shire, much less face the dangers that exist in the world beyond. A group of dwarves arrive’ that evening and despite their gluttonous appetites and loud behavior, Bilbo has a change of heart the following morning and accompanies them on their quest.
The group’s goal is to travel to the dwarves’ kingdom of Erebor to reclaim their stronghold which was lost many years earlier to a vicious Dragon named Smaug. In the decades since, the dwarves existed as people without a home, forced to live as nomads taking work wherever they can find it. Along the way the group deals with all manner of threats and dangers ranging from trolls, goblins, orcs, and other supernatural elements. Of course there were some internal tensions and conflicts within the group as it marched towards a finale that sets the stage for the next film.
The movie has a runtime of nearly 3 hours and there were times that I caught a couple members in press row dozing briefly. While I enjoyed the film more than I did any of the Lord of the Rings movies, it was clearly obvious that things were being stretched out in order to justify a third film in the series. There were countless scenes of the band walking over hills and across the countryside so much so that at times I felt that I was watching the longest commercial for New Zealand tourism ever created. We get it. It’s a long journey. They travel near and far. I got it. I don’t need to see it every 10 minutes.
There were also several scenes that were done almost as if in aside that truthfully did not add much to the story but seem to exist as nothing more than time fillers. In the subsequent films it is learned that characters and scenes that did not appear in the book will be inserted into the film. Once again I have to question this as I do believe they could have easily cut an hour out of this movie and not lose much of the necessary narrative.
There’s been a lot of talk about the higher frame rate 3-D that was used to create the film. There have been claims that it was distracting, jerky, and detracted from the movie. I on the other hand found it absolutely captivating because it did not have that movie look to it, and it felt like I was watching an HD television. Even during the CGI heavy sequences, it did appear as if the performers were literally right there in front of me and I got the impression more of watching a play than of watching a movie.
The visual effects in the film were quite stunning. The live-action and computer-generated elements were absolutely amazing, especially during the latter part of the film when we meet Gollum (Andy Serkis), and during the battle and the goblin stronghold. Although the book is considered a children’s novel, I would really have to think twice about bringing young children to see this film as there is a lot of action and violence in the film as well as potential scares in the form of the monsters that abound.
The film could have definitely used some star power to it. While the cast does a solid job, they are fairly generic and almost interchangeable during certain segments of the film. That being said, the film works because despite its issues, it’s a visually spectacular masterpiece that, if you can endure the long periods of inaction, pays off especially well during the film’s battle sequences.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Spider-Man: Far From Home (2019) in Movies
Jul 14, 2019
A nice "palate cleanser" after Endgame
After the richness - both in emotion and spectacle - of the previous entry in the Marvel Cinematic Universe (that would be the epic that is AVENGERS: ENDGAME), SPIDERMAN: FAR FROM HOME is a palate cleanser.
And that is a smart move by the honchos at Marvel. It brings us back into this Universe acknowledging - and playing homage to - the previous film - but also points us to the future as we fondly remember, but don't dwell on, the past. This Spidey-film takes the titular web-slinger on a roadtrip to Europe where he teams up with Mysterio to fight the Elementals as Peter Parker grapples with the legacy of Tony Stark and a blossoming relationship with MJ.
And...it's a darn fine film. Director Jon Watts and writers Chis McKenna and Erik Sommers craft a light, fun action flick that leans heavily on the personality and charm of Peter Parker/Spiderman and this succeeds tremendously thanks to the continued strong performance of Tom Holland. He has grown into this role and has now fully embraced it a makes it his own. This is the 5th film that Holland has played Spiderman and he is fully in control of the character and is a joyous character to watch.
Ably joining in is Jake Gyllenhaal as Mysterio - another hero who just might be another strong mentor-like presence for Parker. A fine actor of interesting dimensions, Gyllenhaal understands the type of film that he is in and adapts his performance (and presence) accordingly. Jacob Batalon returns as Peter's friend Ned, and he is everything we've come to expect from Ned. The same can be said for Jon Favreau's Happy Hogan and Marisa Tomei's Aunt May - both are welcome, warming, presences that help everyone feel good.
The biggest surprise for me is Zendaya's performance as MJ - I really enjoyed it - and that's a surprise. It is one of those nuanced-type performances (in a Superhero film - of all things) that will make me re-assess my thinking about her as a performer. I thought she was that good.
Samuel L. Jackson and Cobie Smulders reprise their roles as Nick Fury and Maria Hill and they are solid while Martin Starr and J.B. Smoove provide broad comic relief as the two teachers who are chaperones of these high school kids (remember they are high school aged in this film - they'll have to graduate into college for the next one, their age is beginning to show). I've read/heard some negative comments on how "out of place" the 2 teachers were in style to the rest of this film (and the MCU in general) and I couldn't disagree more. I thought they brought just the right size of comedy to what is a light film.
And, make no mistake, this is a light film (which is why I call it a "palate cleanser" after Endgame) and that's just fine. The stakes are an excuse to spend time with this characters - and to dazzle with some interesting special effects that I thought were very well done.
If you're into Spiderman - or the Marvel Cinematic Universe - you'll like this film.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 stars (out of 10) - and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And that is a smart move by the honchos at Marvel. It brings us back into this Universe acknowledging - and playing homage to - the previous film - but also points us to the future as we fondly remember, but don't dwell on, the past. This Spidey-film takes the titular web-slinger on a roadtrip to Europe where he teams up with Mysterio to fight the Elementals as Peter Parker grapples with the legacy of Tony Stark and a blossoming relationship with MJ.
And...it's a darn fine film. Director Jon Watts and writers Chis McKenna and Erik Sommers craft a light, fun action flick that leans heavily on the personality and charm of Peter Parker/Spiderman and this succeeds tremendously thanks to the continued strong performance of Tom Holland. He has grown into this role and has now fully embraced it a makes it his own. This is the 5th film that Holland has played Spiderman and he is fully in control of the character and is a joyous character to watch.
Ably joining in is Jake Gyllenhaal as Mysterio - another hero who just might be another strong mentor-like presence for Parker. A fine actor of interesting dimensions, Gyllenhaal understands the type of film that he is in and adapts his performance (and presence) accordingly. Jacob Batalon returns as Peter's friend Ned, and he is everything we've come to expect from Ned. The same can be said for Jon Favreau's Happy Hogan and Marisa Tomei's Aunt May - both are welcome, warming, presences that help everyone feel good.
The biggest surprise for me is Zendaya's performance as MJ - I really enjoyed it - and that's a surprise. It is one of those nuanced-type performances (in a Superhero film - of all things) that will make me re-assess my thinking about her as a performer. I thought she was that good.
Samuel L. Jackson and Cobie Smulders reprise their roles as Nick Fury and Maria Hill and they are solid while Martin Starr and J.B. Smoove provide broad comic relief as the two teachers who are chaperones of these high school kids (remember they are high school aged in this film - they'll have to graduate into college for the next one, their age is beginning to show). I've read/heard some negative comments on how "out of place" the 2 teachers were in style to the rest of this film (and the MCU in general) and I couldn't disagree more. I thought they brought just the right size of comedy to what is a light film.
And, make no mistake, this is a light film (which is why I call it a "palate cleanser" after Endgame) and that's just fine. The stakes are an excuse to spend time with this characters - and to dazzle with some interesting special effects that I thought were very well done.
If you're into Spiderman - or the Marvel Cinematic Universe - you'll like this film.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 stars (out of 10) - and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies (2014) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
It’s been thirteen years since Director Peter Jackson first took us to middle earth and showed movie
audiences that large scale fantasy could be done right on film with The Lord of the Rings Trilogy. And
now the final trek through middle earth is here with the third and final film in the Hobbit series.
Picking up at the climatic conclusion of 2013’s The Desolation of Smaug, The Battle of the Five Armies is
less about the journey and more about the war between the various armies of middles earth over the
massive riches in the mountain home they journeyed to reclaim. After the exciting beginning that serves
to tie up the previous film and sets to table for this one, we begin to see the brotherhood between the
dwarfs, a wizard, a few elves and a Hobbit that focuses on the bonds of friendship and loyalty. This
builds on itself as it leads to the climactic battle of the five armies. The battle is on the grand scale you
would come to expect from these middle earth films, only at times this battle seems to rely on a bit too
much CGI and thus almost plays out cartoonish. Granted, this is a fantasy world were Dwarfs, Elves and
Men are fighting Orcs so it is really not that hard to suspend disbelief in the first place. Thus the film is
entertaining in its own right as it wraps up one trilogy and bridges to another.
This bridge is what surprised me most. We received a bit more insight to some of the higher beings and
their understanding that villain in the Lord of the Rings trilogy is slowly returning to power. These
sequences are entertaining and great for fan service, but they seem to be handled a bit to simply as it
makes us wonder, if they knew this dark figure was alive, why did they wait so long (The Lord of the
Rings Trilogy) to do something about it. Still, it is nice to see the story wrapped up into one complete
adventure that viewer could connect all the way through.
In the end, those fans of the books and previous films will be pleased with the action, pace and way this
film wraps everything up. Other than the sequence of Bilbo’s interaction with Smaug in the last film, The
Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies is the best film in the Hobbit Series.
audiences that large scale fantasy could be done right on film with The Lord of the Rings Trilogy. And
now the final trek through middle earth is here with the third and final film in the Hobbit series.
Picking up at the climatic conclusion of 2013’s The Desolation of Smaug, The Battle of the Five Armies is
less about the journey and more about the war between the various armies of middles earth over the
massive riches in the mountain home they journeyed to reclaim. After the exciting beginning that serves
to tie up the previous film and sets to table for this one, we begin to see the brotherhood between the
dwarfs, a wizard, a few elves and a Hobbit that focuses on the bonds of friendship and loyalty. This
builds on itself as it leads to the climactic battle of the five armies. The battle is on the grand scale you
would come to expect from these middle earth films, only at times this battle seems to rely on a bit too
much CGI and thus almost plays out cartoonish. Granted, this is a fantasy world were Dwarfs, Elves and
Men are fighting Orcs so it is really not that hard to suspend disbelief in the first place. Thus the film is
entertaining in its own right as it wraps up one trilogy and bridges to another.
This bridge is what surprised me most. We received a bit more insight to some of the higher beings and
their understanding that villain in the Lord of the Rings trilogy is slowly returning to power. These
sequences are entertaining and great for fan service, but they seem to be handled a bit to simply as it
makes us wonder, if they knew this dark figure was alive, why did they wait so long (The Lord of the
Rings Trilogy) to do something about it. Still, it is nice to see the story wrapped up into one complete
adventure that viewer could connect all the way through.
In the end, those fans of the books and previous films will be pleased with the action, pace and way this
film wraps everything up. Other than the sequence of Bilbo’s interaction with Smaug in the last film, The
Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies is the best film in the Hobbit Series.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated The Adventures of Tintin: The Secret of the Unicorn (2011) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
From director Steven Spielberg who brought us “E.T.” and the producer of “The Lord of the Rings” trilogy Peter Jackson, comes the fabulous “The Adventures of Tintin”. The film is based upon the popular European comic books which were created by Belgian artist Georges Remi and tells the story of Tintin (Jamie Bell) , a young journalist and his canine Snowy who are always seeking to find a one of a kind story to write about.
One afternoon at an outdoor market the two come across a small replica of the three-masted Unicorn sailing ship being sold at a very good price. Tintin then starts to be pressured into selling his replica to a sketchy man Ivan Sakharine (Daniel Craig) who tries very hard to purchase the ship by offering him double than what was originally paid. Without luck, Sakharine leaves and is soon followed by another man who also attempts to purchase the ship, only this time he warns Tintin about what he has gotten himself into. Tintin starts to think that maybe there is a secret about this ship and he is determined to get to the bottom of it. After returning home following a scuffle between Snowy and a neighboring cat, the ship is accidentally broken and concealed in one of the masts is a cylinder that later is revealed to contain directions to hidden treasure.
After being bitten by the curiosity bug, Tintin decides to investigate at the house of Sakharine and ends up discovering a second replica that holds another clue. He becomes captured by Sackharine and imprisoned on a ship headed to find the third and final Unicorn replica. Tintin is imprisoned with the Captain of the ship, Captain Haddock (Andy Serkis). Who learn that they must escape and collect all three of the clues to assemble the directions that will lead them to the treasure.
Both are racing to get to the treasure before Sakharine as there is a history between he and the Captain which further complicates the issues at hand.
After what seemed to be a very long and drawn out opening, the film jumps right into the action with lots of adventure, pirates, comedic moments and realistic scenes. This proves that you really can‘t judge a book by the cover as I have never been a fan of stop motion film at all, in fact it has always been creepy to me.
Knowing that this movie was filmed with that technology, I was extremely hesitant in even giving it a chance but I am very glad I did. The film is very well written and executed and truly delivers. The 3D is also outstanding and makes you feel as if you are a part of the epic adventure. I recommend this film to all ages and if you have your doubts, please trust me and give it a chance. You will not be disappointed.
One afternoon at an outdoor market the two come across a small replica of the three-masted Unicorn sailing ship being sold at a very good price. Tintin then starts to be pressured into selling his replica to a sketchy man Ivan Sakharine (Daniel Craig) who tries very hard to purchase the ship by offering him double than what was originally paid. Without luck, Sakharine leaves and is soon followed by another man who also attempts to purchase the ship, only this time he warns Tintin about what he has gotten himself into. Tintin starts to think that maybe there is a secret about this ship and he is determined to get to the bottom of it. After returning home following a scuffle between Snowy and a neighboring cat, the ship is accidentally broken and concealed in one of the masts is a cylinder that later is revealed to contain directions to hidden treasure.
After being bitten by the curiosity bug, Tintin decides to investigate at the house of Sakharine and ends up discovering a second replica that holds another clue. He becomes captured by Sackharine and imprisoned on a ship headed to find the third and final Unicorn replica. Tintin is imprisoned with the Captain of the ship, Captain Haddock (Andy Serkis). Who learn that they must escape and collect all three of the clues to assemble the directions that will lead them to the treasure.
Both are racing to get to the treasure before Sakharine as there is a history between he and the Captain which further complicates the issues at hand.
After what seemed to be a very long and drawn out opening, the film jumps right into the action with lots of adventure, pirates, comedic moments and realistic scenes. This proves that you really can‘t judge a book by the cover as I have never been a fan of stop motion film at all, in fact it has always been creepy to me.
Knowing that this movie was filmed with that technology, I was extremely hesitant in even giving it a chance but I am very glad I did. The film is very well written and executed and truly delivers. The 3D is also outstanding and makes you feel as if you are a part of the epic adventure. I recommend this film to all ages and if you have your doubts, please trust me and give it a chance. You will not be disappointed.
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/