Search
Search results
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Norman F**king Rockwell by Lana Del Rey in Music
Mar 3, 2020
I have had a mixed relationship with the music of Lana Del Rey since her sensational debut album, Born To Die in 2010. I loved that album, and played it a lot! I still do. But always felt like it wasn’t really for me, yet I couldn’t help replaying it and humming the tunes. I also loved the lyrics, with their scathing satire of American life and values, and their downbeat vibe, always on the point of mania or depression, but never crying out for help, merely saying “look, this is our world, fuck it!” The trouble was, for the next 4 albums, despite one or two standout songs, the message and tone got mired in monotony and lack of memorable melodies – although the lyrics were still there.
I had all but given up hope of her becoming an artist of real worth by the end of the decade. It was a case of “remember when Lana Del Rey was the next big thing?” So, I was not expecting her sixth album to be not only very very good again, but potentially her best work to date, even surpassing Born To Die! You could hear it on the first listen – which for me took till December last year, despite its late August release. The reviews had been great, the award nominations rolled in and my attention was caught by this artist once again.
It took only a handful of listens before I had decided this was a great album! And now I am playing it a couple of times a week, continuing to get more out of the lyrics every time. It also plays really well as quiet background music, or loud, as a melancholy rock-out – a trick that isn’t easy to achieve. Her knowing nod to pop culture references, and the divine mixture of 50s Americana, folk and blues, can be a wonderful thing when it works. With six singles already released, there is proof this album has a more solid backbone tune-wise than the previous four efforts.
The task now is making her brand popular again in the singles market, as not one of the six released made it into the top 40, either stateside or in UK. However, the album was #3 in America and #1 in the UK, which gives me more hope that what we are seeing is the maturing of a genuine music artist, and not just an act, existing for sales. There are many, especially solo female artists, that could follow that example; worry more about making good music and less about “the product” and great things can happen.
For me, I love tracks 1-5 played in that order: they are all great tunes, and Venice Bitch at a playing time of 9:38 is an epic pop opus that makes me want to stand up and applaud! The final track, Hope is a Dangerous Thing for a Woman Like Me to Have, But I Have It, is also highly praiseworthy, summing up the message of the whole work beautifully. And it is a fine, honest, feminist, strong yet always vulnerable message. California is a long way away from my world, but I feel I know what she is talking about, somehow.
Look out also for some mesmeric retro home-movie videos on YouTube that segue some of the songs into a dreamy montage. Big fan!
I had all but given up hope of her becoming an artist of real worth by the end of the decade. It was a case of “remember when Lana Del Rey was the next big thing?” So, I was not expecting her sixth album to be not only very very good again, but potentially her best work to date, even surpassing Born To Die! You could hear it on the first listen – which for me took till December last year, despite its late August release. The reviews had been great, the award nominations rolled in and my attention was caught by this artist once again.
It took only a handful of listens before I had decided this was a great album! And now I am playing it a couple of times a week, continuing to get more out of the lyrics every time. It also plays really well as quiet background music, or loud, as a melancholy rock-out – a trick that isn’t easy to achieve. Her knowing nod to pop culture references, and the divine mixture of 50s Americana, folk and blues, can be a wonderful thing when it works. With six singles already released, there is proof this album has a more solid backbone tune-wise than the previous four efforts.
The task now is making her brand popular again in the singles market, as not one of the six released made it into the top 40, either stateside or in UK. However, the album was #3 in America and #1 in the UK, which gives me more hope that what we are seeing is the maturing of a genuine music artist, and not just an act, existing for sales. There are many, especially solo female artists, that could follow that example; worry more about making good music and less about “the product” and great things can happen.
For me, I love tracks 1-5 played in that order: they are all great tunes, and Venice Bitch at a playing time of 9:38 is an epic pop opus that makes me want to stand up and applaud! The final track, Hope is a Dangerous Thing for a Woman Like Me to Have, But I Have It, is also highly praiseworthy, summing up the message of the whole work beautifully. And it is a fine, honest, feminist, strong yet always vulnerable message. California is a long way away from my world, but I feel I know what she is talking about, somehow.
Look out also for some mesmeric retro home-movie videos on YouTube that segue some of the songs into a dreamy montage. Big fan!
LoganCrews (2861 KP) rated Daredevil (2003) in Movies
Sep 20, 2020
"𝘠𝘰𝘶 𝘬𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘵𝘸𝘰 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘐'𝘷𝘦 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘭𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘥, 𝘸𝘩𝘺?"
"𝘉𝘶𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘴𝘴..."
*Director's cut*
Old proverb states: can a movie *truly* be bad with a Colin Farrell performance this fuckin' gonzo? Just as hokey as you remember, that playground fight is one of the worst things to make it through to pass in any superhero movie - and it's hilarious. Really funny when it tries to be, too though - for that matter. Overstuffed and contrived for sure but not too much more or less cartoonish than most of the stuff in the Raimi 𝘚𝘱𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘳-𝘔𝘢𝘯 movies, and this at least endearing market-tested clumsiness is - at the very least - twenty times more palatable than the intolerable formula market-testing in most of the Phase One/Three MCU flicks. This at least tries to have some fun, good humor, comic book replication, varied story beats, and a palpable edge beyond just its superficial emo-ness. I just can't help but smirk at the moon physics fight sequences or corny needledrops ("All this time I can't believe I couldn't see" with a lingering cut to Matt's eyes, come on man lmao). There's also a pretty rock solid backdrop in here about how most of the characters - good or bad - are motivated by greed or self-interest, so ultimately what we have to judge in the end is what's left when that wealth, pride, and/or power is unceremoniously stripped away from them. That final fight/scene with Kingpin is epic. Comes out much more sorta dorkily awkward as opposed to corporately sinister than it did in its day, because of what this has been replaced with and how immeasurably worse it is.
"𝘉𝘶𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘴𝘴..."
*Director's cut*
Old proverb states: can a movie *truly* be bad with a Colin Farrell performance this fuckin' gonzo? Just as hokey as you remember, that playground fight is one of the worst things to make it through to pass in any superhero movie - and it's hilarious. Really funny when it tries to be, too though - for that matter. Overstuffed and contrived for sure but not too much more or less cartoonish than most of the stuff in the Raimi 𝘚𝘱𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘳-𝘔𝘢𝘯 movies, and this at least endearing market-tested clumsiness is - at the very least - twenty times more palatable than the intolerable formula market-testing in most of the Phase One/Three MCU flicks. This at least tries to have some fun, good humor, comic book replication, varied story beats, and a palpable edge beyond just its superficial emo-ness. I just can't help but smirk at the moon physics fight sequences or corny needledrops ("All this time I can't believe I couldn't see" with a lingering cut to Matt's eyes, come on man lmao). There's also a pretty rock solid backdrop in here about how most of the characters - good or bad - are motivated by greed or self-interest, so ultimately what we have to judge in the end is what's left when that wealth, pride, and/or power is unceremoniously stripped away from them. That final fight/scene with Kingpin is epic. Comes out much more sorta dorkily awkward as opposed to corporately sinister than it did in its day, because of what this has been replaced with and how immeasurably worse it is.
Seduction and Dating Quiz for Men and Women
Dating, Entertainment and Games
1.0
Rate It
App
Welcome to the game “Seduction and Dating Quiz” – the App designed to turn you into a much...
Fred (860 KP) rated Love, Death & Robots in TV
Mar 24, 2019
A Heavy Metal reboot? I'm in!
This is an anthology series, airing on Netflix. Originally, it was going to be a theatrical reboot of the Heavy Metal animated movies, but became a series instead. It's split into 18 animated shorts (well, 17 & one mostly live-action) with an average length of about 10 minutes or so each. Unlike the original Heavy Metal movie, there is nothing tying the shorts together, like the Loc-nar.
I want to say, overall, the series is great. Most of the animation is great. Some of it, like in the short "The Witness" is so realistic, you'll think you're watching actual film. However, there are some shorts where the animation is done in the choppy, crappy CGI-drawn animation & this takes away from them. Just like the original Heavy Metal, some shorts work, some don't. Fortunately, most of them work, overall. Some have problems with their endings. They seem to either have no ending, or they're just not satisfying enough. I kind of wish they were 20 minutes each. But there are also some where the ending is the best part.
My favorite short is probably "Three Robots", which is about...3 robots. They're "taking a vacation" through an apocalyptic wasteland. It's funny & smart. My least favorite is probably "When the Yogurt Took Over", which is about...sentient yogurt. Fortunately, this one is also the shortest of them. Funny enough, both of these shorts were written by the same writer.
I see people complaining about the show's sexism towards women. Yes, this is a problem. But a minor one. The show does have fan service, especially in the short "The Witness" I mentioned. There's nudity just for the sake of having nudity. I feel that although in this day & age, in America, this is frowned upon, it fits with these shorts. It's not like it's non-stop nudity, it's just here & there. It also fits with the Heavy Metal series & I'm happy that it's there.
I could talk about each short separately, but I don't think they need to be. You can watch the entire series in a few hours & it's worth it. So what you waiting for?
I want to say, overall, the series is great. Most of the animation is great. Some of it, like in the short "The Witness" is so realistic, you'll think you're watching actual film. However, there are some shorts where the animation is done in the choppy, crappy CGI-drawn animation & this takes away from them. Just like the original Heavy Metal, some shorts work, some don't. Fortunately, most of them work, overall. Some have problems with their endings. They seem to either have no ending, or they're just not satisfying enough. I kind of wish they were 20 minutes each. But there are also some where the ending is the best part.
My favorite short is probably "Three Robots", which is about...3 robots. They're "taking a vacation" through an apocalyptic wasteland. It's funny & smart. My least favorite is probably "When the Yogurt Took Over", which is about...sentient yogurt. Fortunately, this one is also the shortest of them. Funny enough, both of these shorts were written by the same writer.
I see people complaining about the show's sexism towards women. Yes, this is a problem. But a minor one. The show does have fan service, especially in the short "The Witness" I mentioned. There's nudity just for the sake of having nudity. I feel that although in this day & age, in America, this is frowned upon, it fits with these shorts. It's not like it's non-stop nudity, it's just here & there. It also fits with the Heavy Metal series & I'm happy that it's there.
I could talk about each short separately, but I don't think they need to be. You can watch the entire series in a few hours & it's worth it. So what you waiting for?
Leila (5 KP) rated Black Mirror in TV
Feb 3, 2019 (Updated Feb 3, 2019)
If you're looking for a mini-movie that will leave you wondering if technology is really worth the risk, this series is jam-packed full of them.
Each episode is a standalone, a great concept allowing each story to be told in entirety unconstrained by time requirements or character involvement. Episodes range from an hour and a half to just forty minutes, but no episode feels lacking and no episode feels too "fluffed"; you may leave wanting more but never unsatisfied.
Episode one of season one isn't for everyone and I urge you to look past it and discover those episodes that are for you. There are a wide variety of topics covered and some are cruder than others but never just to be crude, it is always with a purpose. Same goes for any violence or language, all is with a purpose and doesn't seem gratuitous. The "Playtest" episode is probably the most jump-scare frightening, but even then, not without purpose, serving a crucial part in how the story unfolds.
While you don't have to watch them in order, I do recommend you wait to watch "Black Museum" until you have watch all of the first four seasons, in order to get the most of the Easter Eggs hidden throughout the episode. You will also find that there are some episodes that will casually mention things from previous episodes, or have a recurring song you can't help but remember from a previous story. It's these little details that make Black Mirror a great anthology, with a story for everyone just waiting to be told.
Each episode is a standalone, a great concept allowing each story to be told in entirety unconstrained by time requirements or character involvement. Episodes range from an hour and a half to just forty minutes, but no episode feels lacking and no episode feels too "fluffed"; you may leave wanting more but never unsatisfied.
Episode one of season one isn't for everyone and I urge you to look past it and discover those episodes that are for you. There are a wide variety of topics covered and some are cruder than others but never just to be crude, it is always with a purpose. Same goes for any violence or language, all is with a purpose and doesn't seem gratuitous. The "Playtest" episode is probably the most jump-scare frightening, but even then, not without purpose, serving a crucial part in how the story unfolds.
While you don't have to watch them in order, I do recommend you wait to watch "Black Museum" until you have watch all of the first four seasons, in order to get the most of the Easter Eggs hidden throughout the episode. You will also find that there are some episodes that will casually mention things from previous episodes, or have a recurring song you can't help but remember from a previous story. It's these little details that make Black Mirror a great anthology, with a story for everyone just waiting to be told.
Lee (2222 KP) rated Murder on the Orient Express (2017) in Movies
Nov 6, 2017 (Updated Nov 9, 2017)
Kenneth Branagh (1 more)
Stunning cinematography
Wasted all-star cast (1 more)
Not very interesting
All style, no substance
This review is possibly a little unfair, as I actually managed to fall asleep watching Murder On The Orient Express. In a busy cinema, early evening on a Sunday. I've only ever managed to do this a couple of times previously - once, while watching a midnight screening of Star Wars: The Force Awakens (I'm an old man, it was way past my bedtime). Another occasion was during the last Alvin and the Chipmunks movie while watching with my daughter (and I quite rightly got a dig in the ribs from her when she caught me out).
Unfortunately for me though, Kenneth Branaghs lavish retelling of this classic murder mystery is all style and no substance. Branagh himself is actually very good, and hugely entertaining as the worlds greatest detective, Hercule Poirot. However, most of the remaining all star cast just seem wasted in their roles and I just felt like I was watching a big, glossy BBC detective drama on a Sunday evening rather than a thrilling cinematic experience.
I made it through the setup and the murder itself. I also made it through some of the questioning of the many suspects too. But I think that's where my body gave up. I don't think I missed much though, and I was awake again in time for the ridiculous reveal and the explanation as to why whodunit actually dunit, but overall this was just a pretty big disappointment for me.
Unfortunately for me though, Kenneth Branaghs lavish retelling of this classic murder mystery is all style and no substance. Branagh himself is actually very good, and hugely entertaining as the worlds greatest detective, Hercule Poirot. However, most of the remaining all star cast just seem wasted in their roles and I just felt like I was watching a big, glossy BBC detective drama on a Sunday evening rather than a thrilling cinematic experience.
I made it through the setup and the murder itself. I also made it through some of the questioning of the many suspects too. But I think that's where my body gave up. I don't think I missed much though, and I was awake again in time for the ridiculous reveal and the explanation as to why whodunit actually dunit, but overall this was just a pretty big disappointment for me.
Autumn (430 KP) rated Ready Player One in Books
Jan 2, 2018 (Updated Jan 2, 2018)
80s references (2 more)
Immersive world building
Not just for gamers
A bit too much referencing (1 more)
Would have liked to know what the winner did with the money after the game was over
I wasn’t alive in the 80s and am not a gamer, but I still got sucked into this book. I have seen a lot of 80s movies and heard of a lot of the consoles and games mentioned, so I was able to catch/understand most of the references. A lot of world building went into this, both inside and outside the OASIS simulation, and I think it was done well. I wish it had gone into what happened after the game was over. Did the winner try to help fix this dystopian society or just buy a big mansion, live like a king and watch the rest of the world burn? I’m glad the main character was from Oklahoma, my home state, and from a city only about 2 to 3 hrs from where I live. Oklahoma isn’t usually a popular place for movies or books to take place so it was nice to see something that partly took place in my state. It was also nice that this character wasn’t portrayed as a country bumpkin being from Oklahoma. Although, his living conditions and home life are pretty standard for characters from my state. I’m excited to see how this story translates from book to movie because, if done right, I think it could be good.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Life (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Life after Gravity.
Mankind is on the verge of a major milestone. The “Pilgrim” probe is returning from Mars containing soil samples that might spell the discovery of the first palpable evidence of life beyond earth. Proving that earth scientists are not completely incompetent, the probe is being returned not to earth but to a lab on the International Space Station where strict quarantine can be maintained. This key mission requirement is the responsibility of Miranda North (Rebecca Ferguson, “Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation”). Supporting her is an international crew including fellow doctor David Harris (Jake Gyllenhaal, “Source Code”), professional astronaut Rory Adams (Ryan Reynolds, “Deadpool”) and Hugh Derry (Ariyon Bakare), the lead scientist studying the samples. Needless to say, the soil samples yield more promise than Derry could have ever hoped for (or North could have feared). A crisis of growth and death ensues in a manner that fans of “Alien” will be suitably familiar with. Can the crew survive against all the odds?
Jake Gyllenhaal is one of my favourite actors with a raft of quality films in his CV such as “Nightcrawler” and last year’s hugely underrated (and almost Oscar-ignored) “Nocturnal Animals”. Rebecca Ferguson is also a class act and one of my favourite actresses of the moment. Here they are starring together for the first time and they don’t disappoint. Whilst neither gets enough quality screentime to really hammer their roles home, both connect to the audience in different ways: Harris is heading for an ISS endurance record, and starting to mentally disconnect from earthly connections as his body also starts to atrophy. North, with a clear attraction to him, tries to hold both him and everything together with steely determination, while carrying more knowledge of the mission directives than anyone else has.
The supporting ensemble cast also work well, portraying a real mixture of nationalities from the cock-sure American played by Reynolds to the sultry Russian commander Golovkina, played by the lovely Olga Dihovichnaya. A special note should also be added in the margin for one of the most surprising portrayals of a disabled character in a recent film.
Unfortunately the material the actors get to deliver, by Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick (co-writers of “Deadpool” and “Zombieland”) doesn’t match their ability. The first 30 minutes or so of the film I found to be totally gripping, but even here some of the dialogue is sufficiently clunky to distract you from the ongoing narrative. Some of the rest of the dialogue becomes head-in-the-hands awful in places: a scene during a de-pressurization episode being particularly painful.
Some dodgy dialogue might be forgivable in an action movie if supported by a strong story. Unfortunately, while the premise of the film is sound (if not original), the story leaps from inconsistency to inconsistency from beginning to end. The writers never seem to settle on whether the ‘being’ needs oxygen, likes oxygen, likes hot, likes cold, etc. and this lack of credibility distracts from the whole film. While the screenplay delivers some seriously suspenseful moments, and some decent jump scares, this is not satisfactory enough to serve up a cohesive movie meal.
This is not helped by ‘bad science’. As I have commented upon before, I’m a physicist by training and unscientific scenes annoy me to distraction. I’ve had to learn to live with the basics of explosions and other ‘noise’ in space (something “Star Wars” started 40 years ago, damn those TIE fighters). But there is a scene in “Life” involving an airlock breach that just completely beggers belief, acted out as if it’s a stiff breeze on the front at Skegness! It’s almost – (almost) – as bonkers as the ‘reactor venting’ scene with Chris Pratt in “Passengers“.
However, the film has its strong points too. Like “Gravity”, this is another special effects triumph with the scenes outside the ISS being gorgeously rendered. “Gravity” was a clear 10/10; this is probably at least a 7, and a reason for seeing the film on the big screen. A key question though is why there wasn’t a 3D version of the film released? Heaven knows I’m no fan of 3D, but “Gravity” was one of the few films that was genuinely enhanced by the format: in fact it is currently the only 3D Blu-ray that I own!
In general, the whole film seems a little half-cocked and lacking in its own conviction. You wonder whether the production company (Skydance) got rather cold-feet about the film in releasing it when it did. Yes, “Deadpool” did very well with its February release, but this is a much more suitable film for a summer audience than a release in this post-Oscars doldrums.
In summary, its a moderately entertaining watch, but at heart just another retelling of the old ‘something nasty in the woodshed’ yarn that we’ve seen played out countless times before. Here though the swanky setting and special effects are diminished by a lack of credibility and consistency in the storytelling. Redemption was on hand though, for while it was heading for a middling 3-Fad rating, it managed to salvage another half Fad in the final 60 seconds: a memorable movie ending that might prove hard to beat during 2017.
Jake Gyllenhaal is one of my favourite actors with a raft of quality films in his CV such as “Nightcrawler” and last year’s hugely underrated (and almost Oscar-ignored) “Nocturnal Animals”. Rebecca Ferguson is also a class act and one of my favourite actresses of the moment. Here they are starring together for the first time and they don’t disappoint. Whilst neither gets enough quality screentime to really hammer their roles home, both connect to the audience in different ways: Harris is heading for an ISS endurance record, and starting to mentally disconnect from earthly connections as his body also starts to atrophy. North, with a clear attraction to him, tries to hold both him and everything together with steely determination, while carrying more knowledge of the mission directives than anyone else has.
The supporting ensemble cast also work well, portraying a real mixture of nationalities from the cock-sure American played by Reynolds to the sultry Russian commander Golovkina, played by the lovely Olga Dihovichnaya. A special note should also be added in the margin for one of the most surprising portrayals of a disabled character in a recent film.
Unfortunately the material the actors get to deliver, by Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick (co-writers of “Deadpool” and “Zombieland”) doesn’t match their ability. The first 30 minutes or so of the film I found to be totally gripping, but even here some of the dialogue is sufficiently clunky to distract you from the ongoing narrative. Some of the rest of the dialogue becomes head-in-the-hands awful in places: a scene during a de-pressurization episode being particularly painful.
Some dodgy dialogue might be forgivable in an action movie if supported by a strong story. Unfortunately, while the premise of the film is sound (if not original), the story leaps from inconsistency to inconsistency from beginning to end. The writers never seem to settle on whether the ‘being’ needs oxygen, likes oxygen, likes hot, likes cold, etc. and this lack of credibility distracts from the whole film. While the screenplay delivers some seriously suspenseful moments, and some decent jump scares, this is not satisfactory enough to serve up a cohesive movie meal.
This is not helped by ‘bad science’. As I have commented upon before, I’m a physicist by training and unscientific scenes annoy me to distraction. I’ve had to learn to live with the basics of explosions and other ‘noise’ in space (something “Star Wars” started 40 years ago, damn those TIE fighters). But there is a scene in “Life” involving an airlock breach that just completely beggers belief, acted out as if it’s a stiff breeze on the front at Skegness! It’s almost – (almost) – as bonkers as the ‘reactor venting’ scene with Chris Pratt in “Passengers“.
However, the film has its strong points too. Like “Gravity”, this is another special effects triumph with the scenes outside the ISS being gorgeously rendered. “Gravity” was a clear 10/10; this is probably at least a 7, and a reason for seeing the film on the big screen. A key question though is why there wasn’t a 3D version of the film released? Heaven knows I’m no fan of 3D, but “Gravity” was one of the few films that was genuinely enhanced by the format: in fact it is currently the only 3D Blu-ray that I own!
In general, the whole film seems a little half-cocked and lacking in its own conviction. You wonder whether the production company (Skydance) got rather cold-feet about the film in releasing it when it did. Yes, “Deadpool” did very well with its February release, but this is a much more suitable film for a summer audience than a release in this post-Oscars doldrums.
In summary, its a moderately entertaining watch, but at heart just another retelling of the old ‘something nasty in the woodshed’ yarn that we’ve seen played out countless times before. Here though the swanky setting and special effects are diminished by a lack of credibility and consistency in the storytelling. Redemption was on hand though, for while it was heading for a middling 3-Fad rating, it managed to salvage another half Fad in the final 60 seconds: a memorable movie ending that might prove hard to beat during 2017.
Ben Wheatley recommended Come and See (1985) in Movies (curated)
Awix (3310 KP) rated King Kong Lives (1986) in Movies
Jun 15, 2018
Ape Sh*t
Inexplicably boring and frankly quite weird attempt to cash in on the Kong name: having survived being machine gunned off the top of the Twin Towers and falling five hundred metres onto concrete (and thus proving that some gorillas just can't take a hint), Kong is in a coma being looked after by Linda Hamilton, who should have read the script before signing on. A no-mark leading man is able to hunt up a female giant gorilla to help out with a blood transfusion, but when the two apes get it on and escape, there's panic all round.
History has seen many overly optimistic monster movies, but few quite as out-of-touch with reality as King Kong Lives. It's not just that the story is preposterous (it is), or that the special effects are terrible (they are), but that one of main emotional relationships at the heart of the story is realised through the medium of two stuntmen in not-great gorilla suits nuzzling up to each other in simulation of simian romance. Your mind rebels when it is exposed to this stuff. 'No,' comes the interior monologue, 'no. Even the big bird in The Giant Claw was more convincing than this. I object. I am on strike from this point on.' With your suspension of disbelief in full revolt, you are forced to watch the rest of the movie simply in 'how much worse can this possibly get?' mode. And the answer is: considerably. To be honest it's only the sheer badness of the movie that keeps it interesting; anything remotely competent is also rather dull. I don't think the 1976 version of King Kong is nearly as bad as most people say; it certainly looks like a classic compared to this.
History has seen many overly optimistic monster movies, but few quite as out-of-touch with reality as King Kong Lives. It's not just that the story is preposterous (it is), or that the special effects are terrible (they are), but that one of main emotional relationships at the heart of the story is realised through the medium of two stuntmen in not-great gorilla suits nuzzling up to each other in simulation of simian romance. Your mind rebels when it is exposed to this stuff. 'No,' comes the interior monologue, 'no. Even the big bird in The Giant Claw was more convincing than this. I object. I am on strike from this point on.' With your suspension of disbelief in full revolt, you are forced to watch the rest of the movie simply in 'how much worse can this possibly get?' mode. And the answer is: considerably. To be honest it's only the sheer badness of the movie that keeps it interesting; anything remotely competent is also rather dull. I don't think the 1976 version of King Kong is nearly as bad as most people say; it certainly looks like a classic compared to this.