tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33474215771531490172024-03-14T08:55:58.061-07:00Final Verdict ReviewsAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10255843136139755590noreply@blogger.comBlogger80125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3347421577153149017.post-26795752519333906482017-12-15T09:54:00.001-08:002017-12-15T09:54:43.016-08:00REVIEW: Star Wars: The Last Jedi<p dir="ltr">It has been too long since I last reviewed a movie, and seeing how the last movie I did (Emoji) kinda dampened my spirit, it was nice to go back to the theater, and return to a galaxy far far away. Disney's third Star Wars film is here, and there's been a lot of hype and buildup for this film. Disney themselves seemed so confident in director Rian Johnson, that they've already given him his own separate trilogy, despite this trilogy not even being finished yet. What kind of film were we in for? Well if you remember last time, I thoroughly enjoyed JJ's glorified rehash. Yes, it's a rehash, but it's damn fun. There's nothing wrong with that. Yeah I probably gave it a bit high of a rating, but I did remember thinking that this movie would need to go into new territory if it wanted that same praise. So... does the Last Jedi deliver?</p>
<p dir="ltr">Well... despite a few vague similarities, it pleases me greatly that The Last Jedi really does seem like Disney's first major bullseye in the Star Wars universe. It doesn't just retread familiar territory, it explorers new territory that I wondered if diehard fans would even accept. This is a very bold film that pays off in more ways than one, and just keeps going and going. It's great to see characters like Poe, Finn, and Rey back at it again, while getting introduced to new characters in the process. And of course, it's great to see the old timers back in the saddle again (unless your name is C-3PO... I'm almost willing to bet he'll die next film).</p>
<p dir="ltr">Now before I get too far ahead, fair warning that you will notice a few similarities in this film to Empire, and even Return of the Jedi. There are similarities. The beginning of the film, the Resistance is on the run from the First Order, Rey is getting trained by Luke. It's all there. But they take this material and go about executing it in probably all the right ways... and even a few ways I'm not entirely sold on. There are certain scenes that my logistical mindset was scratching my head on. Only in Star Wars I guess. But I won't say anything there.  You'd think with certain similarities, that this movie would be predictable, but it's the exact opposite! There were twists I didn't see coming at all! This makes this likely one of the best films to come from Star Wars in decades! And unlike Force Awakens, it doesn't rely so heavily on nostalgia and fan service for you to get your kicks. </p>
<p dir="ltr">Now, at the end of Force Awakens, we got to see the return of Mark Hamill and I remember groaning when the film ended, because I wanted to see what Luke's contribution to this story would be so very bad. And man does this story deliver. Luke in this film can deliver some of the absolute best moments of the entire franchise I feel. He's badass and renowned, yet at the same time, he's gotten rather snarky and it makes for some genuinely great comedy in this film. And the way he goes Scott expanding the lore in this movie about the Force is absolutely beautiful. But that's literally all I can say here because I refuse to spoil his story. It's done just so incredibly well. You won't be disappointed. Guarantee that. </p>
<p dir="ltr">The action? It's there as always. Now that said, I do think the action of Force Awakens and Rogue One was a bit better. Here, it can be a bit more tame. I don't really feel like I'm in the scene as I did in Rogue One if that makes sense. But that said, it is still a lot of fun. </p>
<p dir="ltr">I think if I'm gonna criticize anything in this movie, it's that there are times this film feels oddly out of place in the Star Wars franchise. I don't wanna say too much, but there are times it feels like you're watching an entirely different movie. This can be both good and bad. And during these particular scenes, I did feel that the morality that these films are not exactly the best at graying in kinda stand out in the wrong way. It gets a bit preachy in certain areas actually that just kinda felt silly to me, but in the same way, the film's unpredictability can make for twists in this area that will make your eyes widen. </p>
<p dir="ltr">I could go on about what I loved in this movie, but in the spirits of keeping it spoiler-free, I need to wrap it up. This film is easily the strongest film to come out of Star Wars in decades. Better than any prequel,  better than the other Disney films, I'll go out on a limb to say this is on a level of excellence in the same ways of Empire Strikes Back. Is it as good? Probably not, but I believe most fans will definitely applaud the effort of this film by the time the credits start rolling,  and it's for this reason, I award The Last Jedi with a solid three and a half star rating out of four, and it just barely misses the full rating. Barely. This is one of the years most entertaining films and an absolute joy to behold, and sets up the final film of this trilogy up nicely. Let's just hope JJ Abrams is up to the task. Until then, thanks for reading. </p>
<p dir="ltr"><b>Final Verdict: 3.5/</b><b>4</b><br>
</p>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10255843136139755590noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3347421577153149017.post-19258923389971561152017-07-28T19:47:00.001-07:002017-07-28T21:49:57.153-07:00REVIEW: The Emoji Movie<p dir="ltr"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg8-gbNaGDFzN9-yFuH3gg_xJ4Q6Q2Q-CwEwkl7b0qCui6i_35rioHCY2k5x3y5NKJecPR08vFxN15_0rtXBhiW3oxJvtP82MhtY-2QZgsF6RSJImyQDaSMn_1TeOM-S2dwK1SZwWSYxPG4/s640/blogger-image--1345772195.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg8-gbNaGDFzN9-yFuH3gg_xJ4Q6Q2Q-CwEwkl7b0qCui6i_35rioHCY2k5x3y5NKJecPR08vFxN15_0rtXBhiW3oxJvtP82MhtY-2QZgsF6RSJImyQDaSMn_1TeOM-S2dwK1SZwWSYxPG4/s640/blogger-image--1345772195.jpg"></a></div>The Emoji Movie is about as dumb as you think it is. There. I spared you the pain of reading this full review, and hopefully, spared you the hour and a half of this stupid film. This dated, unoriginal, predictable, unfunny, product of the times. How do you come up with a film like this? Who looks at their phones, texts whoever it is they're texting, brings up these face icons, and suddenly thinks "Hey, I can make a movie on this! A good... relevant... charming movie about text icons..." Well for those of you still reading, I might as well say it, yes this film is as dated as it sounds. It relies on forgettable humor revolving around smartphone apps and whatever stupid jokes your kid can come up with using emoji on your phone. Along with anything the internet might find amusing. Hey, you like cute cat videos right, we got one of those in the movie! You like Spotify? It's in our movie! Facebook? Instagram? Is Just Dance still a thing? We're so relevant. <p></p>
<p dir="ltr">So what's the premise of this movie? Well... it's actually pretty creative. All your smartphone emoji live inside your smartphone, they have one sole emotion. And that's obviously what they're expressing. Happy face is happy all the time. Meh face is meh all the time. Sad face is sad all the time. Poop is...poop, and everything it says is either a poop joke or poop pun. Say for one Star Trek reference because Patrtick Stewart. You get the point. Here's the problem. This concept is actually... pretty cool. I could totally get behind a good well told story about characters limited to one emotion. I mean heck, the world they make is certainly creative enough and with the right creative thought pattern, a really brilliant movie can be made from this!</p>
<p dir="ltr">Oh wait. It exists. </p>
<p dir="ltr">You've probably heard this movie compared numerous times to Pixar's Inside Out. And that's because this film can shamelessly rip it off to a t. And that movie, for as simple as it is, is one of the better films of recent years to really take command of such a concept and make something incredible. This film barely even tries. It's a generic outcast story, with a generic sidekick, who goes on a generic coming of age tale, while his generic parents try to find him before generic villain does, and he is involved in a generic romance and it's about as predictable as you'd think. If you've seen Inside Out, you can watch this, point to certain scenes, and say, "yup there's that scene from that good movie". They don't do anything new, or if they do, it's bland and uninteresting. But if Inside Out wasn't enough to rip off, they also manage to take elements from plenty of other films as well, like Wreck-It Ralph, and even things like The Little Mermaid. So where's the actual story come in? </p>
<p dir="ltr">Well... our phone owner is having girl problems, and since this movie thinks no one uses actual words anymore, he relies on emoji to try and express himself. But he uses our main emoji, a malfunctioning meh face and it sends his phone haywire. Chaos ensues. And its up to our hero emoji to try and fix his glitch before phone owner goes and gets his smartphone erased at the store. Here's the problem. This films message. It's dull. Might as well say "emojis make your world go round, use them more". At the end of the film when boy phone owner and girl phone owner get together, she says she likes how expressive he is... after using emoji. Sorry girl, you're in for disappointment if you think emoji are what you gotta use to express yourself. The guy is still socially awkward and shy. But hey he's got one radical emoji! I guess everything's okay. I wanna say more. I really do. But... I just can't...</p>
<p dir="ltr">Have I mentioned how trendy this film is? I can't remember. Have I? Because it won't have a very long life. I don't care what the target audience is. If you liked this film at all, it won't last. Guarantee you'll forget about this film before too long. This film is a product of the times and nothing more. It won't age well, it won't ever know the word "timeless", and it won't ever be worth more than five dollars in the bargain bin. I can't even recommend it for the young young viewers because frankly, there just wasn't much going on in this film. The theater I was in was eerily quiet in laughter. Because the humor was very dull. Why does Hollywood seem to think that these trend or fad films can succeed? If the Emoji Movie doesn't serve as one of the many nails in the coffin for these films, I don't know what will. </p>
<p dir="ltr">I'm having a hard time properly describing this film. Maybe because I think this is the first corporate film I've ever really experienced. A film I knew I wouldn't like. And yes, I made the mistake is looking at reviews prior to watching it, but I don't think it would matter. This film just doesn't have any life. I'll be surprised if anyone is on the theater watching it next week. There's nothing worth noting to go back to. Nothing at all. I'm struggling to give this a rating because I just don't have the proper words to describe how dumbfounded I am. Am I losing the ability to critique these films? I don't know. But what I do know is that this movie sucks, and it's getting no mercy from me. </p>
<p dir="ltr">The Emoji Movie is a monument to look up at when it comes to dated pieces of garbage in Hollywood. Similar to films like The Lorax, Sing, or other films desperately trying to stay relevant. These are films doomed to failure. The thing that separates those movie from this however, is that those films had at least some saving graces. The Emoji Movie lacks any of that. Laughter was scarce. The animation isn't impressive. The music is what you expect to hear on your mainstream radio stations. This should very much be Exhibit A on the definition of a dated film. The fact that it had to go to other better films for its life blood is just insulting to its audience, that I can't help it. I'm going to give it the lowest of the low. It deserves it. I don't care if it didn't piss me off as much as other films have. It didn't give me one reason to try and convince me that it could have had any potential at all. Shame on this movie. It gets one big frowny face.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Am I being too harsh? Will some kids like it? I'm sure they will. Just do me a favor. Show them Inside Out first. They may thank you one day. </p>
<p dir="ltr">Please feel free to request any film you'd like to see me tackle in the near future. Leave a comment down below on your own thoughts to the film. And as always, thanks for reading. </p>
<p dir="ltr"><b>Final </b><b>Verdict: 0/</b><b>4</b></p>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10255843136139755590noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3347421577153149017.post-11109078033009809902017-07-20T19:17:00.001-07:002017-07-20T21:55:38.480-07:00REVIEW: Dunkirk<p dir="ltr"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgu8Q9n7RNPqQTr9zI_LmBGwfd4YNAnXnVT10dFG1t453W7vBM-yg8w0vAiJEN0j5kInRY8blrClSFXaHw79QRBey9E6WtCah85ryU6r11J-0TkS37zhIbNl7rrY-BZMCkKRhsJoKyZ6lnv/s640/blogger-image--66137854.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgu8Q9n7RNPqQTr9zI_LmBGwfd4YNAnXnVT10dFG1t453W7vBM-yg8w0vAiJEN0j5kInRY8blrClSFXaHw79QRBey9E6WtCah85ryU6r11J-0TkS37zhIbNl7rrY-BZMCkKRhsJoKyZ6lnv/s640/blogger-image--66137854.jpg"></a></div>Dunkirk is easily the best WWII film I've seen since Saving Private Ryan. It is full of some of the best tension I've personally ever encountered in film. I'm actually kinda struggling to give this the right words to describe this film, but I will say right off the bat that this is, in my eyes, a very strong contender for best picture, 2017. It's that good. <p></p>
<p dir="ltr">Right off the bat, this film feels refreshing as this film doesn't take place in the latter half of the war. Dunkirk takes place during the title Battle of Dunkirk, when Nazi Germany has all but conquered France, and is on the verge of driving the allied forces out of mainland Europe, as threatening to invade Britain. It takes place when we're on the losing side of the war. America isn't even in the picture. And the film doesn't take long to get us into the action. It'll maybe even make you jump at how quick it can be. Now it does need to be said that the storytelling part of this film did take a while for me to catch on. Dunkirk doesn't tell one story, it effectively tells three in a very clever way. It tells the story from the perspective of ground, sea, and air. And each perspective is told within a certain movie-time zone. What I mean by this is that the story from the ground takes place over the course of a week. The sea, over the course of a day. And air, an hour. And the film will jump from story to story, so you'll need to pay attention, or you could get lost pretty quickly. But if you ask me, there's plenty of detail to connect the dots. </p>
<p dir="ltr">Dunkirk is very light on its dialogue. There are very few degrees that revolve around soldiers talking. This can result in characters not exactly being memorable, but ironically, it doesn't hurt this film, because the tense atmosphere and detail to the setting tells this story spot on. There is plenty of action, and this is just one of those rare examples in which a lot of action helps the story. And the action can get so tense. While not nearly as brutal or gory as Saving Private Ryan, Dunkirk has a much more tense approach. You can cut the strong emotion of each scene with a butter knife. You will be feeling the tension all two hours in your seat. Despite the simplicity in the film's score, I must give props to it because it only adds to the tension of this film ten times over. </p>
<p dir="ltr">And that brings me to a praise I've never done in a review. The sound design of this film is absolutely phenomenal. From gunshots, to bombs, to the environment, to the planes (those Jericho Trumpets sound terrifying), the deep rumbles... please listen to me when I say this. IMAX THIS MOVIE. Your theater will not go a minute without rumbling. The sound in this film is just... practically flawless. Huge kudos from me there. </p>
<p dir="ltr"> I'm praising this film a lot, because honestly, I can't find too much to hey on this film about as far as problems are comcerned. And the relative few that I have like the characters who aren't too memorable, just don't really do much to hurt this film. The one thing that hindered me was the story jumping all over the place. But even that doesn't do too much to the film because when you get the hang of how this movie tells its story, and when you do start connecting the dots to what's happening and when it's happening, you're treated to just... one of the best films of the year. </p>
<p dir="ltr">With the simplicity of this film, my review may seem kinda on the short end. But I guarantee you that if you like WWII films, this will be one of the best you'll ever see. Despite it taking place in some of the darkest hours of the world, it still managed to be uplifting, and downright emotional. At the very end of the film, I was shedding a few tears. I love it when a movie will give me such a reaction. It's been a while since I've had such a pleasure to see such a strong movie. It delivered on so many levels that I didn't expect at all, and it deserves all the praise it gets. </p>
<p dir="ltr">It is for this reason and more that Dunkirk gets the fullest rating I can give, the strong four star rating out of four. Ok ever of the absolute best films I've seen in years, and I will be astonished if its not in consideration for picture of the year. Despite a few moves they did that don't blur the line between reality and movie, Dunkirk is just too good to nitpick. It aimed at such a simple concept I feel, and crafted an incredible masterpiece that I won't soon forget. And I do hope you'll all experience it for yourself. </p>
<p dir="ltr">Please feel free to voice your thoughts and opinions on the movie down below. Leave a comment requesting a movie you yourself would like to see my thoughts on. And as always, thanks for reading. </p>
<p dir="ltr"> <b>Final Verdict: 4/4</b></p>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10255843136139755590noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3347421577153149017.post-48691544254572921472017-07-10T15:06:00.001-07:002017-07-10T17:23:34.888-07:00REVIEW: Spider-Man: Homecoming<p dir="ltr"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh-E3oV3yqSHjRVjuewQYg_Y_GSZ9XhFYaIu1i89F0kz82ihVWjKEK3sibAkC9-lazsZ8kVhpwQ9MsVpHEpXbh1I-Hn3u-WDPdsRdXSuRuwkxEh7YMEnM5ofXn_ouiOCJCzAgOP-jX33qnU/s640/blogger-image-885850644.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh-E3oV3yqSHjRVjuewQYg_Y_GSZ9XhFYaIu1i89F0kz82ihVWjKEK3sibAkC9-lazsZ8kVhpwQ9MsVpHEpXbh1I-Hn3u-WDPdsRdXSuRuwkxEh7YMEnM5ofXn_ouiOCJCzAgOP-jX33qnU/s640/blogger-image-885850644.jpg"></a></div>Spider-Man: Homecoming is...a Spider-Man movie. What more needs to be said? Fans of the marvel Cinematic Universe have been begging for him to cook be over from Sony, and after a strong introduction in Captain America: Civil War, he's finally got a proper film of his own in the cinematic universe that is Marvel. And... it's fun. What now so I need to say? It's probably one of the most comic- friendly adaptations of the superhero that I've yet seen. And it's getting a lot of praise... maybe a little too much praise. Maybe that's my conservative mindset talking, but I'm not too sure I wanna flat out call this the best Spider-Man ever. Because despite it getting a lot right, there are a few things that bug me on this one (No pun intended).<p></p>
<p dir="ltr">Before I get into anything critical, let's highlight what I thought worked in the film. Spider-Man. I can't deny, the comic spirit of this young, witty Spider-Man is indeed present in the film. As much as I enjoy Tobey Maguire in the older films, he's not exactly the biggest... smart-ass that Spider-Man is. And since I have yet to see any of the films with Andrew Garfield, I'm not entirely sure if the spirit was captured there. And from what I can tell, the fans are pretty split with that reboot that got shut down. And you can definitely tell that Tom Holland is having a lot of fun with this role. I daresay that Spider-Man may have finally found its near perfect portrayal. He's both geeky, and a smart-ass. </p>
<p dir="ltr">I also gotta gotta give props to the action. When people are hit hard in this movie, I could feel it in my seat. Spider-Man takes plenty of hard knocks in this, and by the time the film ends, I'm sitting there, wondering how he's managed to stand up. It's quick, it's smooth, and a lot of fun. Some of these fights were so incredibly fun to watch, particularly the ferry fight, which does a neat callback to Spider-Man 2. And I might as well say it, Iron Man's role is pretty fitting for the film. I was kinda scared he'd be one of those show-stealers, but I gotta admit, it's a very fitting role for him. And when he's involved in the action, as limited as it is, it doesn't detract in any way. </p>
<p dir="ltr">I also kinda appreciate how this isn't an origins story. With a great trilogy already showing that, and a cancelled reboot also showing how Spider-Man came to be, Marvel put some thought into this film, and decided, hey, we're not idiots. We know how Spider-Man came to be. So they stent to give us a fun story which of course ties into the big Marvel cinematic universe. Unfortunately... in the same retrospect, this is where problems start to show up. While some will argue that it's good that this movie doesn't go all out in introducing Spider-Man to us, I honestly don't think they did enough of an interesting story here. </p>
<p dir="ltr">Yes, we're all happy that it's not just some big sky laser destroying the world, and whatnot, and that the friendly neighborhood Spider-Man is indeed dealing with a rather local problem, but the problem here is that I honestly don't really see this story as all that memorable. The story is just about Spider-Man thwarting the illegal thefts and sales of weapons developed from alien technology. That's it. We couldn't... up the ante just a little here? And it doesn't help that almost no characters we're familiar with in the Spider-Man canon appear here. It's literally just Peter Parker, and his aunt. The love interest is generic, we don't see <u>Norman</u> Osborn, even MJ isn't introduced by name until the very end of the film. Despite her actually drifting around in the film. Which brings me to my next problem. The villain</p>
<p dir="ltr">This film is exhibit A for me right now in terms of the classic argument of marvel villains not being so memorable. And conning from a Spider-Man film, that's inexcusable. This is a universe that includes the Green Goblin, Venom, Doc Oc... Some of the most iconic villains Marvel has at its disposal. And we get...Birdman I guess? Seriously, who is that guy? Some of the villains I've listed I daresay have that same elite status as comic book villains from things like Batman and Superman. Marvel right now has Loki, and Thanos. That's it. While I personally enjoy the villains from the other movies, particularly Guardians of the Galaxy, most will say that Marvel villains are pretty weak as far as iconic status is concerned. What could have been a great way to turn that argument around, sadly isn't taken advantage of here. Instead, we have the first Marvel villain that has yet to really make any impression on me in the least bit. The movie tries to pull a fast one on us as far as who he is and whatnot, but I saw it coming a mile away. I wasn't surprised at all. </p>
<p dir="ltr">And on a more personal gripe, I don't like Aunt May here. Maybe I still have my nostalgia goggles on from the early 2000's, but my fear from Civil War has been realized. Aunt May is nothing but a running joke. How so? In Civil War, Iron Man played creep, and made a bunch of "Your Aunt is hot" jokes that I just didn't find that funny. I had a fear it would be this running gag, and some people toss me, "Oh she's barely in the movie. Shut up. You don't know what they might do with her." Fair enough. We got a Spider-Man movie now. And the jokes just kept coming. If it was from Tony Stark alone, I'd probably be more okay with it as he's that Casanova we know him as, but it comes up multiple times, from different people. Can you see why I'm more prone to liking Aunt May from the original trilogy? She had more of a purpose in those films for Peter. Here... she's just comic relief. And not exactly very funny. So... yeah. I saw it coming, and I didn't care for it. If you laugh at it, all the more power to you. </p>
<p dir="ltr">I know I'm kinda harping, but truth is, the film is very much a lot of fun. One thing I'm not giving the story proper credit for is that this story does indeed flesh Spider-Man out. Peter finds out what it means to be the Spider-Man, without a rehash of another "Great power, great responsibility" story. Granted, it isn't the best, but it's still very well told. It does lead to some very strong development from Spider-Man, and I actually really liked how he had to find his true inner strength without his fancy suit. I daresay it's the strongest element of this movie, and while I'm sure diehards would have liked more of that classic Spider-Man formula we're all used to at this point, I don't think anyone will complain too much that they executed the film in this manner.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Spider-Man: Homecoming earns a three star rating out of four. While certainly not the best superhero film I've ever seen, the praise it's getting can be argued in its case. It's a good strong opening for Spider-Man in the cinematic universe that shows off a lot of potential, and promise for future films that are indeed coming. It has me wanting more from the cinematic universe in all the right ways. And coming from a guy who started off not really caring too much about these films in the first place, I think that's high praise in and of itself. </p>
<p dir="ltr">Please feel free to request a film you'd like to see my thoughts on. Leave a comment down before of your own thoughts on the film of you wish. And as always, thanks for reading. </p>
<p dir="ltr"><b>Final Verdict: 3/4</b></p>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10255843136139755590noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3347421577153149017.post-71152827338122194992017-05-06T06:54:00.001-07:002017-05-06T17:02:42.316-07:00REVIEW: Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2<p dir="ltr"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiIFQAyn3wBtKAILOssJ1FIKUgqm5OV7l5vX-m8M5fkEoKR6O42qZAcsEqggU5-r8wqHFk78qfcLnU0z7oN7thdg4bsZ793dx-t_MrOpRZcw1NBpTZ5enLswyQr-w7h354b0gxsR2-k0Sjz/s640/blogger-image--565447991.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiIFQAyn3wBtKAILOssJ1FIKUgqm5OV7l5vX-m8M5fkEoKR6O42qZAcsEqggU5-r8wqHFk78qfcLnU0z7oN7thdg4bsZ793dx-t_MrOpRZcw1NBpTZ5enLswyQr-w7h354b0gxsR2-k0Sjz/s640/blogger-image--565447991.jpg"></a></div>When Guardians of the Galaxy came out in 2014, I originally thought it was one of the dumbest looking things out there, and just an overall dumb idea. I was thankfully very much proven wrong, because the Guardians easily have become my favorite aspect of all marvel right now. And when I heard the sequel was on its way? You can bet I was ecstatic. More awesome space action, big laughter, and awesome music? Yes please! And... well the sequel is fun. Is it as good as its predecessor? Probably not, but I guess that's to be expected nowadays. Guardians of the Galaxy 2 provides a gun enough story but honestly, it feels slightly bloated, and a bit of a small mess. <p></p>
<p dir="ltr">When I first saw Guardians of the Galaxy I 2014, I'd not seen anything Marvel in years. Not since Iron Man. And when I saw it, it was a followable story without me needing to know ANYTHING about Marvel. It did a good job telling its story, introducing and developing its characters, and it didn't need to unload all this information that I would have had to see the other movies to understand. This movie? Honestly it's a bit of a mess in that retrospect. And I think that comes from the fact that there are just so many characters they're trying to flesh out in this movie. New and old. The film does do a good job in developing these characters out, and developing their relationships with one another... but honestly that's all it kinda does right, because the story seems to go all over the place. </p>
<p dir="ltr">The story's main focus is of course Peter Quill's father being revealed and how they bond, and again the relationship they develop is rally believable and well done, but they also throw in this Raveger subplot which is barely touched throughout the film, these high priestess aliens that are absolutely forgettable (and it doesn't help that it seems they'll be back), and....(sigh).... baby Groot.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Who thought this would be a good idea? Let me take a step back here, because thankfully, Baby Groot doesn't take center stage so much of the film. He's not exactly the biggest focus. But when he IS, it can be very annoying. The opening sequence of the movie, we see the Guardians battling this big alien monster for some compensation, but instead of actually showing us that battle.... Baby Groot is the focus of the screen as he dances to the usual 1970's classic pop/rock. An obvious callback to the first film. I don't know why. It wasn't that funny then, and it's certainly not funny now. Seriously, no one was laughing in the theater at this part. And it goes on for quite a while too. It got stupidly annoying. And honestly, so did Groot. How did one of the most badass characters of the first film stoop like this? He has a few good moments, but everything that made him a genuine awesome character last film is gone here. "Travis, it's because he's a baby!" Yeah. And it was a bad move. What would you rather watch, Groot impaling multiple enemies through the chest with his arm, flinging them around a hallway, or a mini groot that is very much just eye candy, and takes out ONE single bad guy in this movie? In a Marvel movie, what do you think I'm gonna choose???</p>
<p dir="ltr">Sorry, I had to get Baby Groot out of my system. He's easily my biggest problem with this movie. </p>
<p dir="ltr">If you want some other criticism, I don't exactly care for the jubilee of CGI used either. I'm not gonna pretend that Marvel movies know when enough is enough in CGI, but when you have sequences that serve little more than to seemingly pad out the runtime and do their best to get a giggle from the viewer, I will dock points. There's a sequence I which Rocket and Yondu need to make a jump through space, and the sequence involves the distortion of their faces, and... It looks like it came straight out of the late 90's. If that's not enough, some of the landscapes and environments don't exactly wow me either. There's just not a lot to convince me that their world is real. Too much CGI... and this is coming from a guy who doesn't often complain of the overuse of CGI...</p>
<p dir="ltr">And finally, though it's growing on me, on be of the biggest aspects of this film kinda fell short for me. The soundtrack. I wasn't alone in 2014 when I praised the selection of pop and classic rock showcase on that wonderful little cassette tape. It showcased quite a bit of fun stuff, from David Bowie, to Norman Greenbaum, to the Runaways, to 10cc. It's a wonderful soundtrack. And while this film's soundtrack is charming in its own ways, it does kinda fall short for me. I had quite a wishlist of artists I'd hoped to see featured, and not one of them was featured. (For the record I'm not saying this soundtrack sucks because nothing I hoped would be on there made it, I'm saying I had a big list of potentials, and nothing made it to my surprise honestly) The music is still fun to listen to, with nice hits from Fleetwood Mac, Electric Light Orchestra, and George Harrison, among others, but there are songs I feel may have been misselected. Even the stuff I wasn't familiar with in the last film's soundtrack managed to impress me. I'm not really getting that same feeling here. Again, it is growing on me, and it is not at all a bad soundtrack, it just lacks the magic I feel of the first one. </p>
<p dir="ltr">Truthfully, I know I've been a bit critical in this review, and yes, I stand by that criticism, but this film is still a lot of fun. It does what the first film does in pushing that limit of fully embracing the fact that it is indeed a comic book movie. The humor can vey much revolve around that. In 2014, when I saw Guardians, I said it was about as literal a comic book movie as one could get, and that feeling is still there. There is very funny, unexpected humor (even if a lot of the humor centers on Baby Groot, and penis jokes.... yeah that was a thing). The action is tons of fun. From the fun space combat to the gunfights on the ground. And I will say that the big climax at the end of the film? It's great. They say that Marvel suffers from bad villains. I think they hit the target here. </p>
<p dir="ltr">But of course, I think this film's biggest strength is it's character development. The relationship between characters of the last film incredibly fleshed out. I found myself rooting for characters I never thought I'd root for. And even if a lot of these characters just let out as bunch of expositional backstories at times, I really did connect with all of them at one point or another. The film did get emotional on more than one occasion, and it does hey me very much excited to see what's coming in the future of the Guardians of the Galaxy, and it gets me excited for the next Avengers film. Here's hoping it delivers. </p>
<p dir="ltr">Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 earns a high three star rating out of four for me. The story is jumbled, but it is held up with the fun I've come to expect from both Marvel movies, and Guardians of the Galaxy. Would the solid story have been appreciated? Absolutely. Should some of the bloated sequences here have been cut? Sure. I mean... There's like five post credit scenes that barely do anything for any future story, except maybe one. But it's held up, it's fun, and I guess I couldn't ask for anything else. I will say my expectations for the third film that's been announced well be higher, even if the magic of the first film may not be able to be caught again, but I will expect more than what I got here. Don't get me wrong. This is a fun movie, but it does suffer the common problems of most sequels. And with some of these problems seemingly fixable, I will say I hope next time, we will get a bit more magic than what we got here. </p>
<p dir="ltr"> Feel free to request a film you'd like me to view I the near future. Leave a comment down below, expressing your own thoughts on the film, and as always, thanks for reading. </p>
<p dir="ltr"><b>Final Verdict: 3/4</b></p>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10255843136139755590noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3347421577153149017.post-2495077647121206492017-03-16T20:33:00.001-07:002019-08-22T20:51:55.150-07:00REVIEW: Beauty and the Beast<p dir="ltr"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjPLLslmEx65s8hEc_zaM4BWPu2KOvdze2tMgqjrtcuHZg-t9j481ygZGzFDoq5gGrSYXhAglarJSyZFAFhdxMbvZ40Mfr5ad5NG8Qw5eZ1y1Vb9WmEN98itnfziOL0SUAiCghPvMkLTvqx/s640/blogger-image--1485954675.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjPLLslmEx65s8hEc_zaM4BWPu2KOvdze2tMgqjrtcuHZg-t9j481ygZGzFDoq5gGrSYXhAglarJSyZFAFhdxMbvZ40Mfr5ad5NG8Qw5eZ1y1Vb9WmEN98itnfziOL0SUAiCghPvMkLTvqx/s640/blogger-image--1485954675.jpg"></a></div>Before seeing this, my expectations were exceedingly high. If you remember from last year, I'm not exactly the fan of Disney's approach to their live action remakes right now. Of the many they've released, The Jungle Book was the only one I seemed to really enjoy, mainly because it was the one movie that could have used a remake. If you want my reasonings there, read that review. But once I heard they were going to remake Beauty and the Beast, the 1991 animated masterpiece, the first animated film to ever be nominated for Best Picture, into a live action movie? You can bet all sorts of red flags were going up in my head. Why? Why did this need to happen? Why remake something that DOESN'T NEED A REMAKE?<p></p>
<p dir="ltr">I actually wanted to write out a review for the animated movie beforehand, and I probably still will, just been somewhat busy lately. But long story short, I don't give that movie enough credit for what it was, what it did, and what it still is. The animation was incredible and even revolutionary. The music was timeless. The characters were some of the strongest of any Disney movie. It really is the Pinnacle of the Disney Renaissance. I may enjoy other films more, but it's rightly praised for a reason. And it has enough of an audience to the point where remaking it will likely turn up a small profit. Disney literally has nothing to lose by remaking this. It could bomb, and they would still be on top. So why not remake a Pinnacle masterpiece? They can do it! Unfortunately, to quote Dr. Ian Malcolm, I'm sure these studio heads were so focused on if they could do it that they forgot to ask themselves if they <i>should</i> do it.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Because there was no reason to. This film is completely unnecessary. There is no newer generation that's out of the loop, most people will still go to the original. The remake of Beauty and the Beast is disappointing, lacking, drug out at times, and just completely... I'm sure I've said this plenty of times already, but I'll hammer it home again. UNNECESSARY.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Strap yourselves in guys... This is a long one.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Right off the bat, the film starts almost completely the same as the original, though it gives us a more in depth look as to what exactly happened to the Prince as far as his transformation is concerned. It even explains why his castle is not known to the village, which is a small plot hole the original movie glossed over. Right off the bat, I didn't care for the costumes. I know it's time era appropriate and whatnot, but these costumes to me stand out as rather fake. They even keep the same color schemes and designs for Belle as she makes her first appearance. And it just stands out in the wrong ways to me. The setting of The entire movie can be incredibly hit or miss for me. Sometimes I feel that the scenery is chewing out all the actors onscreen almost. Quite the achievement. I also feel that there are times that they don't know what to do to make this remake stand out on its own. They do very little to make it seem as such. One of the reasons I love Jungle Book last year as much as I did was that it did more than simply remake is original animated source material. It improved and added onto it...A feat that's impossible to do with this film. Granted they do have a few additions that are kinda fun in the long run, but completely unnecessary. For example, Beast has this book that can magically transport him anywhere in the world. It's like the mirror he has, only apparently more literal? And they visit Paris, where Belle was apparently born. The she discovers what happens to her mother, which gives us more insight to Belle's character and what her past was like. This would be well and good, but the thing is, it really doesn't contribute a whole lot to the story in the long run. The can be said for a lot of things.</p>
<p dir="ltr">The cast of this movie does its job I guess. Emma Watson's autotuned singing is convincing enough, the voice of the beast I will say is absolutely wonderful (spot on casting there), Josh Gad has a lot of fun with Lefou, which I'll talk more about later, but as for the rest of the cast... I'm honestly not that impressed. Gaston feels very out of character for me. He's been watered down from the egocentric heartless fun villain that he was in the original. In fact, the first time he interacts with Belle, I thought Belle was crazy not to interact with him. All he did was give her flowers and invite her to dinner! Now you compare that to the original, where he takes her book, mocks her reading, and almost forcefully takes her to his tavern, and you tell me which is the better portrayal. And yes Gaston is no Romeo in this, and he does still have those rude moments, but then there are times that he just straight up becomes a cold blooded attempted murderer, and it makes no sense. Another thing to say is that in the original, he's the guy that people strive to be like. In this, the only one kissing his boots is Lefou. And that's probably more for other reasons than sheer admiration. During one of my favorite songs, focused on Gaston, the tavern doesn't seem that interested in Gaston, where in the original, they're drinking drink after drink in his name. This isn't the Gaston I know and love. Disney took one of my favorite villains they have and completely messed him up. </p>
<p dir="ltr">But that's not all. They also messed up the chemistry of characters like Coggsworth and Lumiere. I swear, Coggsworth barely says a word in this movie. Or his lines rarely go past five words. Most of the time he's just grunting or stuttering, where he's originally running around, trying to get people to straight up listen to him, and trying to get the last word in no matter what. Here, you'd have to pay me to believe that he's head of household. Lumiere isn't as bad, he's still the guy pushing for the spell to be broken and whatnot, and Ian McAllen doesn't do a bad job showing that. But he spends most of his time interacting with that feather duster than he does Coggsworth. Their friendship with each other is one of the most fun things of the animated classic! Why is it so noticably absent here? </p>
<p dir="ltr">I didn't like the choice for Mrs. Potts at all. One of the things I noticed in this remake is that a few characters have a lot of sass. And it feels oddly out of place. During the musical number "Be Our Guest", I swear, there's one particular moment where Potts is flying through the air, and she does a kissy face to the camera....NO! Just... NO! Why was that needed? Someone please explain to me why they put that in.</p>
<p dir="ltr">And while I'm discussing characters, I guess I gotta acknowledge the elephant in the room. The controversial move to make Lefou a gay character. I didn't really have any problem with it since he's not the focus of the story, and it does make for some very silly awkward laughs. It's not in your face, it's rather subtle at times, and if not for a few obvious moments, I likely never would have noticed at all. But that almost makes me wonder if this is borderline tokening. Just a move from Disney to say "Hey we have a gay character now! That's relevant, right?" They have enough fun with his character in the film to the point where I don't mind too much, though I will say with as much crap Gaston puts him through, his added change of heart in the movie comes way too late. I half expected him to be the one to bust Belle and her father from the prison cart. </p>
<p dir="ltr">I'm gonna move on from the characters for a moment. Let's talk about the music. It's hit or miss. All the classics are here, and some are musical numbers I've never heard. I don't know if they're from the Broadway musical or whatnot, but these additional hits really don't do it for me. They're nowhere near as memorable as the original stuff. I guess they may have been written by original composer Alan Menken, but there's likely a reason they didn't make the movie. They're just not that good. Even the classic stuff can be hit or miss. On one hand, I loved the presentation of "Be Our Guest", but in another, the opening number was very dull. The village seems beyond dead. People just standing around, not moving, it's quite a bore to behold. "But Travis, that's the point! Belle is singing about how boring her life is there!" And even in the original the town at least seemed more lively. People were moving, conducting their everyday lives. Here there's a scene where literally the only two people moving are Belle and Gaston. Come on movie! Liven it up a bit! </p>
<p dir="ltr">I should also say that there are things in this movie that just don't fit, and are there mainly for what feel like "because movie" moments. Like in the opening act, Belle is teaching a little girl to read, and people mock her for it. They literally give this snobby "a girl, reading?! PREPOSTEROUS!" response. Then they go as far as to ruin her laundry. What the hell? These villagers are a bunch of jackasses! They also try to flesh out the backstory of the beast with this clichéd, he lost his mother, and his father was cruel trope, and that's why he's so selfish. I'm... So tired of these tropes. Sure the original movie doesn't give us the insight needed to understand why the prince is how he is, but it's almost stronger that way. I prefer seeing him just growing up to be a spoiled rotten little shit, because there ARE kids like that. The payoff of him learning to love again is that much greater! Here they constantly foreshadow that there's good in him and that he's not to blame for the way he is and it takes away so much...</p>
<p dir="ltr">I mean hell, in this movie, Belle KNOWS about the curse! She knows that they're under a spell that will become permanent if the enchanted Rose completely wilts, and yet when she's asked if there's a way to lift it, no one tells her. Would it not be so much easier to say, "Yeah there's a way. Beast's gotta learn to love, and she's gotta love him back." and potentially avoid future trouble? Or is there some small print in the curse that she can't know what's going on? Even the films climax is weak. In fact, it's drug out like nothing else. I hate to spoil things, but in this case... I'm not sure I'm giving away anything. The last petal falls from the enchanted Rose, and we get this long drawn out scene of all the minor characters losing their humanity and becoming more and more like objects, which is a fun concept, but one I didn't care for. I also gotta say that after that final petal fell, with the connection they built on it being connected with the castle decay... Shouldn't the castle have just collapsed? Oh well. Guess we need our happy ending. But it's a good minute or so before Belle confesses her love... AFTER THE PETAL FALLS. I hate to be that guy, but no. Happy ending chance is gone for me there. Instead, the Enchantress is there and I guess takes pity on the Beast because Belle is weeping over his dead body, which says she loves him in return. This ironically leads me to the most damning thing about this movie. The chemistry between our two leads.</p>
<p dir="ltr">The one thing you couldn't mess up in this movie is messed up. There is nothing present in this movie to make me thoroughly believe these two could fall in love. From the time Beast speaks with her in the prison tower as she's trying to free his dad, he doesn't say A WORD to her until he's pounding on her door, demanding she join him for dinner (one of my favorite scenes of the original movie which is a huge letdown here). He doesn't even speak to his servants about her. Here he's content to leaving her in the tower if not for the intervention of his servants, he doesn't care to feed her, he wants virtually nothing to do with her at all. While in the original, his servants are pushing for him to interact with her, and we learn more about his character and behavior. He's more demanding of her in that, which pushes her past her patience. His servants try to reform him in ways that strangely work. In the animated movie, after he's screaming at her to get out of the West Wing, there's a moment after she flees that he realizes his mistake. There's no such moment here. When Belle flees, there's no reason to believe that he would go after her, and no reason to believe that she would not just leave him to die. This would ironically work if they built off this hate relationship they have going on, but they don't. There's no interactions, there's no thoughts as to how to get things started, and the resulting relationship is beyond forced. They do that one scene where they bicker at each other as Belle tries to bandage the beast, and it felt more like a check mark on the movie more than anything. There was nothing convincing me.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Now granted, by the time the second half rolls on, things do get rolling. And there are some genuine moments between both Belle and the Beast. Belle's joy at seeing his massive library is actually really funny. And a few moments of them just reflecting on the land around then can be touching. But by the time the iconic ballroom scene passes, it falls down into this unbelievable relationship again. The scene after the ballroom dance of the original movie is also among my favorite scenes of that movie. When Belle realizes her father is in trouble there's one little moment where Beast looks at the enchanted Rose in despair. Because he knows that this is his one shot at breaking the curse. Yet he knows what he has to do in letting her go because of how much he cares for her. That moment is missing in this film. Instead he just let's her go. But it doesn't end there! The moment after this in the original movie, after Belle is released, Coggsworth comes in and begins to congratulate the Beast on the good night he has with Belle, before he realizes the Beast has released her. After he asks why, Beast replies "Because I love her." And the delivery, the emotion, the feeling of this one line alone is absolutely perfect. You are totally convinced that he genuinely cares for her. In this movie? After they question why he releases her...Mrs. Potts says that it's because he loves her...</p>
<p dir="ltr">NO. NO MOVIE! BAD! You lost me! Anything you had going as far as chemistry is concerned is absolutely gone now! You gotta hear HIM say it! It's not the job of the servants to convince me the viewer, that Beast has changed. That's HIS job. HE has to break the curse. HE has to convince me he's learned to love. And NOT ONCE does he mutter the words "I love you". Not once. Even by the end when he's transformed, they feel more like a gimmick then an actual couple! There's nothing there. I'd like to see anyone even try and defend this aspect of the movie now.</p>
<p dir="ltr">...</p>
<p dir="ltr">I'm sorry, I'm sure most of you think I hate this movie right now. Truth is, I don't. Oh it's bad, and beyond disappointing, but it's hardly among the worst things I've ever seen. Some of the visuals in this movie are absolutely stellar, and some of the comedy is spot on. There's a scene where Belle throws a snowball at Beast much like the original, and the beast just throws this large ball of snow and BELTS her out cold in the face. And it's absolutely hilarious. But this movie is missing so much that made Beauty and the Beast so incredible to begin with. And when you mess up the one thing you need to nail in this movie of convincing us that these two do indeed love each other? You can tell I'll be hard on you. This movie has the look, even the sound of Beauty and the Beast. But all that spirit, all that emotion, all that essence that made it a Disney Legend? It's absent. The remake of Beauty and the Beast is a one and a half star rating out of four. And it barely earns that. It's not among my worst movies ever seen, but it's easily one of the biggest disappointments. I mean I knew it likely wouldn't hold up to the original... But to see it crash this hard blows my mind. It doesn't even hold a candlestick to the original film. And I'm sure some of you will disagree, like my sister who's a Beauty and the Beast fanatic. Some of you will find this enjoyable. But I'm willing to bet that if asked what they wanted to watch between this and the original animated masterpiece, nine out of ten people will point to the original.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Please feel free to request any movies you'd like to see me review in the near future. Leave a comment down below expressing your own thoughts on the movie, and as always, thanks for reading.</p>
<p dir="ltr"><b>Final </b><b>Verdict: 1.5/4</b></p>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10255843136139755590noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3347421577153149017.post-13067462249533892612017-03-09T20:39:00.001-08:002017-03-09T22:05:45.157-08:00REVIEW: Kong: Skull Island<p dir="ltr"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgLJASof-FJqC607ld0eOYjmAZO-JGwSp4AbVuDjJ4JBeAmBb4UtvKkqGVx_VzGCvGU-0ruuJ1zR7X-EuMFcCB2HXkI2YvGr-LDhq3j4Kwj6CFUwdR8vYXdG-LGs-_wSIaLqlnqa_9OK0rd/s640/blogger-image--918004948.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgLJASof-FJqC607ld0eOYjmAZO-JGwSp4AbVuDjJ4JBeAmBb4UtvKkqGVx_VzGCvGU-0ruuJ1zR7X-EuMFcCB2HXkI2YvGr-LDhq3j4Kwj6CFUwdR8vYXdG-LGs-_wSIaLqlnqa_9OK0rd/s640/blogger-image--918004948.jpg"></a></div>I've been watching Kong movies for ten straight weeks, all in preparation for this movie. I've seen very few results, seen a few posters, seen a few discussions about people's concerns over this film. It's the second official entry in the new Cinematic Monsterverse as they're calling it, and I just sat through it, ready to end it all. And the question on everyone's mind is, is the movie any good? Is it boring? And is it better than Godzilla 2014? The answer to those questions are in that order, YES, NO, AND HELL YEAH. Let's dive right into this because I'm sure I gotta convince at least a few of you.<p></p>
<p dir="ltr">Unlike Godzilla 2014, this film doesn't delay it's start. It thrusts us into the South Pacific in WWII, for a bit of an intro, before we get our opening credits, and let me tell you that small opening scene sets the mood for one wicked radical monster film, that doesn't waste time getting you to the action, doesn't waste time establishing it's characters, and doesn't waste time on plots you don't care about. People complained about Godzilla's lack of screentime in the 2014 film. Kong has plenty. People say the action isn't focused on enough in Godzilla. Oh my God is the action ever present here. People complained about the characters of Godzilla being bland and rather boring. The characters here are much better improved, with a likeable cast who's having a lot of fun, and you can tell it. And people complained about the story not involving Godzilla enough, instead revolving around family drama and whatnot. You won't have any reason to complain about ANY of that here. And if you even TRY to complain about any of it, I will sit your ass back in the theater and I will make you point it out to me if you have to. </p>
<p dir="ltr">Now let me take a few steps back, because are there some flaws? Absolutely. I expected as such. But strangely enough, none of the flaws I expected to come after watching trainers really came to mind. The things I have to say here are more like little nitpicks to things I still actually kinda like. One being how we get to our climax. Without spoiling too much, the military characters are a bit overly jarhead-y in this film if that makes sense. I'm unsure done if the character motivation here is completely justified, but when the climax actually happens, I just don't care. It's too fun, but more on that shortly. Another thing is that unlike Godzilla 2014, where I thought the CGI used to bring life to Godzilla was practically spot on, there are times I'm not as fully convinced here. Maybe mammals are just a bit harder to portray in that area.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Another thing I'll say is that while I'm thoroughly impressed with the portrayal of Skull Island, I still prefer Peter Jackson's portrayal. Now don't misunderstand me. This film does a wonderful job of showing off Skull Island. It's got a lot of really cool stuff to show off, plenty of new things, new surprises, new monsters, new creatures, but if you're going into the theater expecting dinosaurs, you're going to be disappointed. The creatures are very bizarre in a good way, at times even looking like they belong on another world, but this can also lead to a lot of Skull Island looking rather passive. I'm not spoiling anything here, but the first creaturr you see on this island are a bunch of deer..... See what I mean?</p>
<p dir="ltr">But that's behind me. Let's talk about the monsters. Specifically Kong, and the Skullcrawlers. I was skeptical to them both. I wasn't that impressed by the trailers. Well I love being convinced, because they're both wonderful to watch. Kong is intimidating. Kong is majestic. Kong even has some characteristics that define just what Kong is, like taking a small interest in a human female. It's all very convincing, even if it's not that well developed. The only thing I'd have wanted more of, was a roar to shake the theater. Godzilla wins there. The Skullcrawlers? They're terrifying. They're agile. And they'll make up for the disappointment some saw in the Mutos of Godzilla. </p>
<p dir="ltr">The action... Oh my God the action, my hands are trembling in excitement about how incredible the action is here. The film does NOT hold back. It's not a buildup like it is in Godzilla. It's not something that's constantly cut away from. When it happens, you see it happen, and you're in for the long ride, whether that's monster against monster brawling, or humans trying to survive the lush gorgeous jungles of Skull Island. Some of the sequences are over the top in all the right ways, and it's just one big treat to behold. It really did tickle my big monster fan inside me. Each fight is a treat to watch. They're brutal, they're massive. Even painful. You feel each hit. And this goes beyond monster brawls. There are times you WILL feel like you're watching a superhero movie! Action involving the humans can be a lot of fun. Each segment is done wonderfully to the point where I'm likely just repeating myself. I'm slobbering over how fun it is... This movie rocks! By the climax, you won't care how over the top it can get because of how much fun you'll have. That said, the find doesn't leave me on quite as big a high as Godzilla, but you know what? I don't care.</p>
<p dir="ltr">One thing however that surprised me was just how much I loved the characters of this movie. Those who know me know that I'm not one to praise the characters of most big monster films. They can be very clichéd, very weak, not exactly people I care much about. Here, I'm with them practically from the moment the film starts, whether they're just talking friendly with one another, jeering another, expressing frustration, or even rocking out to this films absolutely wonderful repertoire of awesome classic rock (no joke, the music they okay in this is AWESOME, I love the 70's), I'm always following them, with interest. While the characters can have their cliché moments, I don't think there was one character I didn't care about. Your characters all have wonderful personalities, wonderful backstory, wonderful payoffs, these characters are some of the best in any monster movie you'll see. I'm hoping we'll see some of these guys return. I have to watch Godzilla again, but I think Adrian of this film first appeared in Godzilla. I'll have to look again. See? Already, the film is connecting the dots.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Oh and yes, the film does tire in nicely with Godzilla, and those who go, expecting to see something referencing the other famous monster King, will be thoroughly satisfied. In fact, by the end of the movie I was actually cheering. True story.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Truthfully, this is one massive step in the right direction for this new Cinematic universe. It is starting to subtly connect the dots with the other films while setting up future ones. I'm very excited right now for the future, and that's more than my big monster fan inside me talking. Other more serious critics may disagree with me, but if you ask me, they're the ones missing out. I'm giving Kong: Skull Island, a nice solid three and a half star rating out of four. And you guys have NO IDEA how close I got to rating it that full four. It BARELY misses it. It has so much going for it, and so little going against it that it's hard to not give it that four. But don't let a simple number make you believe I didn't enjoy myself. That's not the case. A few clichés, a few nitpicks, and a few other observations will not keep me from saying go see this. Because this film is a lot of fun. To have so much come from this film that honestly had a lot on its plate to do? You can bet I'm beyond impressed. And to finally have a King Kong film, that's actually really... REALLY good that isn't just another remake of the original? I'm happy it finally happened. What a film to end this marathon on.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Please feel free to request any films you'd like to see me tackle in the near future. Leave a comment down below expressing your own thoughts on the film, and as always, thanks for reading.</p>
<p dir="ltr">I sincerely hope you enjoyed my marathon of Kong these last few months. Now... I'm taking a well deserved monster movie break. Go watch this movie.</p>
<p dir="ltr"><b>Final </b><b>Verdict: 3.5/4</b></p>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10255843136139755590noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3347421577153149017.post-56795590612966849232017-03-08T06:52:00.001-08:002017-03-08T10:19:53.680-08:00REVIEW: Logan<p dir="ltr"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh1nX5MPrdqIf7GA5QVDIU2ggXUwHqQgQ55E56DfAYEmkXVosLkudIFG_2SD8jilROFaxEtw8p8fn6vXbC_mVgEUO0I_lvzLhO6Pm3au37h64wkW95CLHWyWDXzbOrprAnCmBerEnpO9X3c/s640/blogger-image--467111066.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh1nX5MPrdqIf7GA5QVDIU2ggXUwHqQgQ55E56DfAYEmkXVosLkudIFG_2SD8jilROFaxEtw8p8fn6vXbC_mVgEUO0I_lvzLhO6Pm3au37h64wkW95CLHWyWDXzbOrprAnCmBerEnpO9X3c/s640/blogger-image--467111066.jpg"></a></div>Going into Logan, I really wasn't sure what to expect. I hadn't seen an X-Men movie since that attrocious Wolverine Origins story back in the day, and after watching that, I very much shut the door on X-Men. I was just done at that point. I haven't seen any of the newer X-Men films, and really didn't have much of a desire to. I'm not sure why I went and saw this one. Maybe it was because it was meant to be Jackman's one last big hurrah. Likely that of Stewart as well if what I'm hearing is correct. And watching Logan, I was scared I'd missed something because it took me a while to put certain pieces together. Maybe I should have watched at least the original trilogy before this. Because there were people I didn't know and plot I was having a hard time connecting the dots with. Like how did we get from there to here? But as far as I can tell, this is a standalone picture, so I think the film just kinda caught me off guard.<p></p>
<p dir="ltr">Watching this, I was quickly reminded that this film would be rated R. That's not really a bad thing persay, but I was reminded about how much praise Deadpool got last year, and how people were presiding that it was that film that made R rated superhero films possible, and how we should have more, and honestly... I don't think I'll back that statement. A rating to me is nothing but a letter or letters and a sequence of numbers. Just entertain me. (For the record, I've not seen Deadpool either. Just no interest to.) So did this movie entertain me? The answer is yes, yes it did. I'm glad I went and saw it.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Right off the bat, this film shows you what you're in for, and wastes no time showing you that this is no kid friendly superhero picture, as we see Wolverine in his later years just showing absolutely no remorse as he just slices and dices his way through some troublemakers like it's any other Monday. This really goes without saying, but this film doesn't hold back on its action. It's brutal. It's bloody. It's gory. At times it can be painful to watch it. It's a lot of fun. You haven't seen X-Men like this, where Wolverine is just putting his fist against someone's head, and his claws suddenly just extend through their head, or where his claws dismember people or straight up behead them. The film doesn't hold back. It doesn't hold back on its swearing either. I'll say it, Patrick Stewart doesn't sound the same dropping F-bombs. He's too classy in my book for that kind of thing.</p>
<p dir="ltr">It should also be said that the cast do their job wonderfully in portraying their characters. Everyone feels in character, even if Hugh Jackman feels a bit tired at this point. Without spoiling anything, it can be said that he is still very much in character and this performance is likely this way for a reason. But I couldn't help letting out a chuckle at a few scenes in which I just pictured him out of character, freaking out because he was so done with these films. In all seriousness, the cast really does seem this movie for me. I'm not kidding when I say they likely were the sole reason I went and saw this. </p>
<p dir="ltr">The story I feel is a bit convoluted, and confusing at times, especially if you're like me and just coming back into the franchise after about a decade or so. The story revolves around Wolverine needing to escort this young mutant girl up to North Dakota so that they can escape this dystopian United States, but Logan is having doubts about this girl and whatnot since mutants apparently are no longer born, and it becomes a bit of a bonding movie between him and this girl, while he also spends his time with likely the only friend he has left, in Charles Xavier. It can be very emotional to see what these two have gone through over the years together, how they once had things going right, and how they've now been reduced to practically nothing. Unfortunately, this can lead to some pretty predictable elements in the story. But I won't spoil anything there. All that needs to be said is that the story is still told well, and they by the end of the film, I'm sure the most devoted fans will be rubbing their eyes. Heck, there were a few times I actually felt a bit emotional.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Honestly, I think the only real flaw of this film in story is the lack of an interesting villain. We don't get a lot of development in our main baddies here. They're just kinda there for me. The main antagonist is this government guy, chasing these kids who were mutated and bred for war, yet... Strangely can't take care of themselves on the run... But I guess they had to shine the light on Wolverine for his final performance. I think the film kinda mocks how generic their villain is, because during the climax, he barely plays a part at all. The main showcase is really Wolverine fighting this clone of himself. I guess like the Avengers, Wolverine's greatest enemy is himself. Albeit more literally.</p>
<p dir="ltr">When all is said and done, I'm not lying when I said I'm happy to have seen this film. It's not at all a bad film. It actually makes up for the attrocious I saw a decade ago. But I won't call this the Dark Knight of X-Men films. That's a bit of an exaggeration for me. But it is a solid film for Jackman and Stewart to go out on, and they was all I could have asked for at this point. I'm giving Logan a solid three star rating out of four. The film has its flaws, but the payoff of this film, the no strings attached action, the incredible emotions portrayed are absolutely wonderful. It's a film to finally give Wolverine a little standalone magic he's needed since his first film, and it's a damn shame it's his last one. But maybe that's for the best. It's a solid finale for Jackman, and he would have it no other way.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Please feel free to request any film you'd like to see me tackle in the near future. Leave a comment down below expressing your own thoughts on the film, and as always, thanks for reading.</p>
<p dir="ltr"><b>Final </b><b>Verdict: 3/4</b></p>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10255843136139755590noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3347421577153149017.post-8146453464960672052017-03-06T06:32:00.001-08:002017-03-07T06:56:01.640-08:00RE-REVIEW: King Kong (2005)<p dir="ltr"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgdCQ-XBn3B-XXOSv4b7Z7Pd2ln3BqPS4dYFd7J2s-P9ZEQZQD7zvuM_Ji5MQP1yJu-qCESASY40TYlBT2HsH-TdAZ9P-7TocKha_SPsaqjJloFTchJu98f0OoOCSIdN9CWDJkK8xcQn1eA/s640/blogger-image-1145721686.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgdCQ-XBn3B-XXOSv4b7Z7Pd2ln3BqPS4dYFd7J2s-P9ZEQZQD7zvuM_Ji5MQP1yJu-qCESASY40TYlBT2HsH-TdAZ9P-7TocKha_SPsaqjJloFTchJu98f0OoOCSIdN9CWDJkK8xcQn1eA/s640/blogger-image-1145721686.jpg"></a></div>I once reviewed this film a couple years back now I believe it was, but in the spirit of the Kong-a-thon, I'm doing this review from scratch, just for you. It was roughly ten weeks ago that I called the original King Kong movie the greatest big monster of all time. It's had a rather weak franchise to date with a few hidden gems, but let's face it, when you take into account some of the many Kong related things I've watched over this marathon... On second thought let's not go there. It's bad enough without having to relive some of it. However, through it all, Kong survived, and in 2005, Peter Jackson came along and it was announced he'd be remaking it, and this was a film that was coming off the heels of arguably his greatest film work, the Lord If the Rings trilogy. This is a film that has faced it's fair amount of criticism and praise for various reasons. What do I think of it?<p></p>
<p dir="ltr">I call it honestly the last great film of Jackson, because let's face it. The guy has fallen from grace. But what a film to come from the guy. Despite a few nitpicks, this is a film I will continue to defend, because as far as a remake is concerned, this is about as good as one can get. Who would have thought a Kong film could be so wonderfully developed? For this to delve deeper into this story, and bring forth such a wonderful side to it, it really is impressive. It absolutely nails the story of Kong, and thensome even improves some of it. This is unheard of in a remake. </p>
<p dir="ltr">Right off the bat, you are transported to New York in the 1930's and despite the overly done CGI environment, it looks wonderful. Jackson did a very good job of bringing this time to life, from the early stages of the Great Depression, to the costumes, to countless other things. And right off the bat, we discover that the characters we're familiar with are going to be developed in ways the original didn't do. We see Ann Darrow as this starving actor, trying to make a dime and failing to keep herself fed. We see Carl Denham as a much crazier movie director than before, and though it can be argued that he's a little <i>too</i> crazy in this film, he's portrayed wonderfully by Jack Black, which is a pleasant surprise to me. In fact, it can be said that most characters in this movie are fleshed out wonderfully. Even the crew. The only complaint I have here is that once the Skull Island scenes are done, the crew are no longer really in the film. They kinda just drop off the face of the Earth. It only makes me wonder why they bothered fleshing them out as they did, from the ships cook, to the first mate, to this young kid. There's really not a whole lot of payoff for these characters. Another one I don't care for is Jack Driscoll who isn't the first mate here, more a playwright. That's fine, but he's not particularly interesting. While I got one kinda like the normal guy they were trying to portray him as, they couldnd have made him standout a bit more.</p>
<p dir="ltr">But let's move away from what the movie nails for a brief moment and talk about its problems, because as much as I love this movie, this film does have some flaws. Particularly its length. At well over three hours, it rivals the Lord of the Rings films with its runtime, and unlike those films, a lot of the movie seems kinda drug out. It takes a full hour to get to Skull Island in this film, and it can try your patience. There are countless sequences in which the editing feels incredibly choppy or weird. From unnecessary slow motion, to extended dramatic reveals, to sequences that are unnecessary and feel more like they're meant to pad the already long runtime. They just don't really fit this picture to me. Another thing I don't particularly care for are the natives in this picture. While there certainly intimidating, and different than what we've seen, they kinda add an element I'm not entirely onboard with. They come across as somewhat supernatural in a sense. Something I don't really care for. This supernatural side introduced more choppy editing and stillness that just make this film drag. That said, the natives of the movie are again, very intimidating and creepy as hell, even if at times it's early over the top unnecessary. My uncle has brought forth this argument that they're more politically correct in how they're portrayed compared to the other films, and truthfully... I'm just here for an adventure.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Another thing I don't always care for is the overuse of CGI. While Peter Jackson I've more shows off his visual talent with these backgrounds and action sequences he's gone overboard with since, there are some effects that really could have been polished much better. There are times the CGI is beyond noticable, and just kinda clutters the screen. During this dinosaur stampede, after all these Apatosaurus trip over one another, we see Denham and Driscoll so obviously against a green screen of dinosaurs that are piling on top of one another. And during this ice skating sequence with Kong and Ann, Kong falls into the snow, and the snow that sticks to him feels like it belongs in an old PS2 video game. When your CGI is reminding me of the quality of certain sequences of 1998's Godzilla, you can probably polish your film a bit more.</p>
<p dir="ltr">But that's literally all the qualm I have for this picture. Practically everything else in this film is wonderfully done. Skull Island. It is easily the best depiction of this island of any Kong film. They brought back the mystery and the land stuck in time elements of the original Kong film, and added to it wonderfully. Here, the surviving dinosaurs have evolved over the millions of years, here they keep that infamous lost scene of the spider pit in one of the craziest sequences of the film, here they only add to the intimidation factor and the mystery of this island, from the time they venture out beyond the wall. In the extended version, they immediately have to fight off this dinosaur in one of my favorite scenes of the entire movie. The dialogue is priceless as they examine the future of this triceratops-like dinosaur, and someone asks "Aren't these supposed to be extinct?" To which the cook lights up a smoke and says, "They are now." It's a wonderful portrayal of this film, that really does give off the impression that this is no man's land. An island where literally every living thing is out to eat you alive, from the biggest dinosaurs, to the smallest insects.</p>
<p dir="ltr">The action of this film is also wonderfully done, even if at times over the top. It's all wonderful to look at, from Kong's dinosaur battles, to the survival of Skull Island, to the rampage of New York. But one thing I also really like is how fleshed out the relationship between Ann and Kong is. The movie develops their relationship out in ways no other film does. And it succeeds with flying colors. From Ann impressing Kong with her former stage acts, to Kong showing frustration to her repeated attempts to escape, to Ann eventually realizing that Kong doesn't intend to harm her, and eventually accepts his protection and company... it's all wonderfully done. It's done so well that it makes that climax at the end all the more hard to watch when Kong takes his last stand atop the Empire State Building. My favorite moment of the entire film is Ann and Kong sitting up there watching the sunrise. Kong has this look of sorrow, to the point where Ann is literally all he has left. You can tell he knows that this won't end well for him and he's just cherishing that moment with Ann. And it's suddenly interrupted when you hear those plane engines and see them flying across the screen not too far from them. It's a shot that sends chills down my back each and every time. </p>
<p dir="ltr">But the thing that this film does the best is without a doubt, how it stays true to the original film. I think going in, Jackson knew that he was about to tackle one of the best films of Hollywood, and he knew that people were going to be paying attention. And he did his homework. He understood that he could go bold, but that he'd need to hold back at the appropriate times. It's a wonderful blend. There are lines of dialogue pulled straight from the original film, as well as sequences that mirror the original. For example, while Kong fights not one, not to, but three evolved Tyrannosaurus Rexes, he finishes off the final Rex in the same manner as he did the one in 1933. Breaking it's jaw, and skull area, before playing with the jaw and roaring in triumph. Even smaller things, like some of the costumes of the stage performance mirroring that of the natives of the original Kong, are just done so well in taste I feel. I can't help but feel how it also adds a little historical touch as that what how we saw the island natives back in the day. There's even a few things I picked up that I hadn't noticed before. In New York, when Kong is onstage, the orchestra actually plays pieces of music STRAIGHT from the original Max Steinberg score of the original movie! NOW THAT IS AWESOME! Combined with an already great musical score in the film, this just adds a cherry on top of an awesome sundae.</p>
<p dir="ltr">I could go on with how much I love this film. But I think it is clear. Yes the film has flaws, but when it has such a payoff in the way it does, the emotions, the bonds that the original film lacks, let me tell you that some things are definitely well worth waiting for. I'm not gonna call it better than the original, but I will say it can share a spiritual place up there with the original. Why? Because this is a remake that is almost perfect. It stays true to the spirit of the original, it holds back when it needs to, and goes all out when it's safe to. This is a remake of quality that I've not seen done before, and may not see again. And that's why, Peter Jackson's 2005 remake was, and still is, the fullest rating I can give, a full on four stars out of four. It's not perfect, but with all that it can give us, the nitpicks I've pointed out can easily be forgiven when you look at the bigger picture. It has a respect for the original you won't see in any other remake. It doesn't lean on nostalgia for you to like it, and frankly, it doesn't need to. It's the film that FINALLY restored the magic into this franchise for me, and with Kong returning to the big screen this Friday? I can tell you that no one is more excited for the big guy's future.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Please feel free to request any film you'd like to see me review in the possible future. Leave a comment down below of your own thoughts on this film, and as always, thanks for reading.</p>
<p dir="ltr">I hope you've enjoyed my journey through the King Kong franchise these last few weeks, but it's not done yet... There is one more film to tackle and I'm tackling it Thursday night. Join me then for my SPOILER FREE review of Kong: Skull Island.</p>
<p dir="ltr"><b>Final </b><b>Verdict: 4/4</b></p>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10255843136139755590noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3347421577153149017.post-68043072647339361002017-02-26T20:39:00.001-08:002017-02-27T10:43:46.148-08:00THROWBACK REVIEW: Kong: The Animated Series (2000-2001)<p dir="ltr"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi8cWXlH_3ayGdSnxERtO4vQbPNC85VbevKNHHXeQxukuyq0ag3JrWRfhhCFgYtRQuJDZn475jk9RuaVILW35pjxs1IiEtnUBsxvsNq24taSAAsDl2j71iQjRHalKNscTwWA4fRqP8c9DIT/s640/blogger-image-245947013.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi8cWXlH_3ayGdSnxERtO4vQbPNC85VbevKNHHXeQxukuyq0ag3JrWRfhhCFgYtRQuJDZn475jk9RuaVILW35pjxs1IiEtnUBsxvsNq24taSAAsDl2j71iQjRHalKNscTwWA4fRqP8c9DIT/s640/blogger-image-245947013.jpg"></a></div>Hey kids, do you like Godzilla: The Animated Series? Ever wish to see it without the charm and likable characters? Was the decent action of Godzilla: The Animated Series too much for you, and do you wish it were toned down times ten? Do you like plot devices and technology that break every law of science I the goddamn book? Then Kong: The Animated Series is just the show for you. What is it with all these atrocious King Kong cartoons? Can't one decent animator get Kong right? Is it asking that much to have a Kong cartoon that's slightly better than that animated musical? <p></p>
<p dir="ltr">If you can't already tell, I'm not at all a fan of this cartoon series I've just watched a good chunk of. Because it makes no sense. I like to think I follow Hodgson's Law pretty well. There are times I need to remind myself, that whatever I'm watching is just a show or movie, and I should really just relax. Don't get me wrong, that doesn't really affect my critical analysis so much, but when it comes to certain nitpicks and technical details that some people can raise hell over, I tend not to care. This is true in particular to the Star Trek fandom I'm a part of. But if there was ever one show, that made me want to throw Hodgson's Law right out the window... this is that show. Because I'm wondering if the writers themselves bothered to take a double take on their absolutely ridiculous concepts. There is very little holding this show up for me.</p>
<p dir="ltr">You can tell the show was trying to compete with Godzilla: The Animated Series. It focuses on this small group of humans who team up with King Kong's...clone....yes, clone... as they fight giant monsters, usually controlled by this really generic villain. But if that's not enough, the show felt the need to rip off God knows how many other shows. Like Dragonball Z apparently. I've heard song comparing fusion dances or something to this show. I don't know, I could care less about Dragonball. What I do care about is how dumb the concept is. How do I explain it? After Kong's demise in 1933 atop the Empire State Building, a young scientist managed to preserve Kong's DNA so that later on she could create a clone of him........ (<i>annoyed </i><i>grunt</i><i>) </i></p>
<p dir="ltr">Let me run that by you again. A scientist... in 1933... preserves Kong for the sake of cloning. Was that even... possible back then? Was the technology of 1933, REALLY so far along that preserving DNA for future cloning was really that conceivable? How does she fund such a project? Why does she do this? Why is my brain already hurting from think about this? We have our generic villain of a professor, who's seeking these things called Primal Stones, as each possess incredible power and he of course wants it. So alongside ripping off Godzilla, and Dragonball... they apparently decided to throw in some Jackie Chan Adventures as well, because these Primal Stones just remind me of the Twelve Talismans of the Chinese Zodiac. And they're also connected with ANOTHER big bad villain I this demon god character. Seriously, what is this? What. Is. This? This is one of the most convoluted shows I've ever seen. It's almost as if its trying too hard to be cool. It's not working. If you want a big bad demon character, fine. But is it necessary to introduce him so early on, especially if you already have a main baddie? Just do your ripoff talisman hunt plot, and begin your gargoyles ripoff story later. Don't do it all at once, it just convolutes your story! It's a giant mess!</p>
<p dir="ltr">If the ridiculous concept didn't make you change your channel, these characters most certainly do. These are some of the blandest characters I've ever seen. There's Jason. He's your hero character. That's all. There's his buddy Eric. He's a big doofus that likes pineapple pizza. That's all. There's Lua. She's a tough girl native shaman who's pretty much of with nature. And that is all. Do you see where I'm going? All of these characters are obvious cutouts. If you compare them to the characters of Godzilla: The Animated Series, you can immediately see a difference. I'm not gonna pretend that show is perfect, because it's not, but each character actually has a bit of development. And they have ways of standing out. Even the weaker characters of that show have more going for them than anyone here. Liking pineapple pizza is not something that makes your character unique. And then there's our generic bad guy. Who you can tell is bad from the first moment you see him. He is evil. He does things because he's evil. And that is... say it with me now...ALL! <span style="font-family: sans-serif;">I'm not going to beat this dead horse any longer. </span>You get the idea. These characters are atrocious.</p>
<p dir="ltr">And the action. Good God the action. Watch an episode of this show, then watch an episode of Godzilla, and tell me which is more satisfying. I'm not trying to make this review of big comparison to its Godzilla counterpart, but for as silly as that show can be, it actually has a lot of very fun action. The monster brawls are great. I love watching Godzilla (or Zilla Jr. for all you purists out there) grab monsters by the head and drag them underwater. I love watching him analyze his foes and really look for a weakness. I loved how he'll often finish them off with an atomic fire breath to the head. It's a lot of fun! So... what does this show have? We'll make a quick comparison, the very first monster Kong faces is a T-Rex. Okay, good so far. The fight lasts a few seconds, and all Kong does is twist the neck a bit. <i>(Facedesk)</i> I wish I could say it gets better, but it really doesn't. It doesn't get worse, but each opponent Kong faces is so generic, so forgettable, so not very fun, that I never have much fun watching it. And the fighting is no better. </p>
<p dir="ltr">Speaking of Kong, he looks hideous. I understand they had to keep him kid friendly and all, but he doesn't look so very good to me. And he sounds even worse. His grunts and roars will grow on you. Very fast. You can tell Scott McNeil is just literally saying "ROAR" in the microphone. And I've yet to tear apart the one thing I utterly hate this show over. The merger sequence. This is that Dragonball element I was mentioning earlier. Apparently, Jason's grandmother (the scientist who cloned Kong) invented this device in which one could merge themselves with an animal. Its really just a pitiful excuse to give Kong some power in the show when he's struggling, and an excuse to give him opponents from the professor. The thing is, this thing is never explained how it works. And it breaks way way WAY too many laws of science for me to buy it. For example, when Jason merges with Kong, Kong virtually remains the same height and appearance. But whenever the professor merges with any random animal like say a rat, the rat is suddenly as big as Kong with a monstrous appearance. How does it get that big? Why does it look as such? None of this is explained. And that's not the worst of it. Apparently, Jason can have Kong merge with him, making him easier to travel with. Like...Kong merges with Jason. Who remains the same height and appearance. That's right...Kong is now pocket sized. Breaking every law of mass in the book. With ZERO EXPLANATION. </p>
<p dir="ltr">I can't take it. I just can't take it. I've tried looking for something to enjoy. To thoroughly enjoy. I just can't seem to find it. Nothing makes any sense. What makes even less sense was how this show lasted longer than Godzilla did. I'm not good pretend that show was the best, but it was a lot of fun while it lasted. This got two seasons... And TWO DVD feature films. How did this happen? How did it manage that? I spent roughly 8 hours of my life, watching this horrible show, and the only thing I found? It gives me an unintentional laugh now and then. There's your bright side. The one thing worth mentioning as good. Fuck this show. </p>
<p dir="ltr">Kong: The Animated Series is a half star rating out of four. It's beyond dull. The characters are bland. The action is bland. The animation is incredibly bland. Even the few concepts that I found kinda interesting failed to hold up any potential. How do you mess up this badly? I don't know what they needed to do to make this ridiculous show work to their advantage, but one thing's for certain, I'm never looking at it again. It's just not worth my time. Don't try and get me to watch the rest. My patience only goes so far. </p>
<p dir="ltr">Please feel free to request any films you'd like me to look into in the near future. Leave a comment down below expressing your own thoughts about the show below, and as always, thanks for reading. </p>
<p dir="ltr">I'm almost done. Next week will be the final week of the Kong-a-thon. Praise the Lord. I'm hoping to be reviewing, not one, but TWO movies next week. And we start it off with one of the absolute best remakes a film can hope to get. See you Monday when I review the 2005 Peter Jackson remake of King Kong. </p>
<p dir="ltr"><b>Final Verdict: 0.5/4</b></p>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10255843136139755590noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3347421577153149017.post-89334879218635864692017-02-20T05:33:00.001-08:002017-02-20T10:45:25.507-08:00THROWBACK REVIEW: The Mighty Kong (1998)<p dir="ltr"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjvR8LtnxkngIg8yk-zdCdm-Pyype0ntMB7BDa30IW4mXTO1sWHoXFfrvd-ra1vmfpmwI5v2zZnRgpTFPmwnNKAG4Ld1QBylMF5BAfZJvvfHHBWh1tnXTvWuMoPMt28_6wKljZLqfYTxIEo/s640/blogger-image-1675882858.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjvR8LtnxkngIg8yk-zdCdm-Pyype0ntMB7BDa30IW4mXTO1sWHoXFfrvd-ra1vmfpmwI5v2zZnRgpTFPmwnNKAG4Ld1QBylMF5BAfZJvvfHHBWh1tnXTvWuMoPMt28_6wKljZLqfYTxIEo/s640/blogger-image-1675882858.jpg"></a></div>What on earth did I just watch? I'm not sure it was real, because prior to watching this, I made myself quite the cocktail, and I found myself laughing at this film more than I likely should have. Just listen to this concept and just see if it interests you in the slightest. King Kong, released as an animated musical, starring Jodi Benson, more commonly known as the voice of Ariel in Disney's "<i>The </i><i>Little </i><i>Mermaid</i>". I'll be completely honest, I once saw this as a kid, and thoroughly enjoyed it. I don't remember when that was, maybe it was 1998. I really don't know. All that you need to know, is that watching it roughly two decades later? How I ever found it entertaining, I'll never know. I think a lot of us think that at some point in our lives. <p></p>
<p dir="ltr">That's not to say Mighty Kong is terrible, but it's certainly not good. There are a few things I actually found I kinda liked, but yeah, on a whole, this one really isn't that great. At only 72 minutes in length, it compresses the story of Kong, and a lot of the exciting parts of that story are merely glanced over, while a bunch of pointless stuff is included. One thing that immediately comes to mind is the dinosaurs. They're barely shown in this. And the fights are not that impressive. I mean...that's practically a Kong staple for me. But on the note of Kong, I ironically found him to be surprisingly absent in this film. Even when he's on screen, he's just not that impressive. This could be the fact that by the time we see him, likely half of the movie is done, and whatnot, but when he's tromping around New York City, there's just not a lot of fun in it. He just kinda looks blank in the face. It sucks the energy right out of the story. </p>
<p dir="ltr">The characters don't exactly help out here. They're pretty terrible. The only two even memorable are Denham and Darrow, voiced by Dudley Moore and of course, Jodi Benson. Jack Driscoll is in the film, but he's not. If you thought there was no way the wooden acting and surprisingly sudden romance between him and Darrow couldn't be anymore wooden and sudden than the original, just wait until you see this. At least in the original, the two spent some time talking and bantering back and forth before they found out they loved each other. Here, Driscoll just kinda constantly insults her, to the point of her becoming infuriated with him, but one song later, they're in love. But they don't even really explore that too much. And honestly, the only reason I remember Denham in this movie is because of his strange accent. He almost talks straight up like William Shatner at times. That and he's almost always smiling in this movie. Oh and there's these two completely pointless characters in the movie in this cabin boy and his pet monkey who contribute nothing in this film at all. They're there to be a supposed comedy relief, but they're not funny, and they're not charming. They're entirely pointless. </p>
<p dir="ltr">I guess I can't talk about a musical without addressing the music, so how is it? Well like the movie, it's not terrible, but it's certainly not good. It's listenable. That's about it. Some of it really doesn't need to be there. Some of it is just forced. One song that I actually kinda dug was a song that didn't need to be there, but was kinda fun just for the sake of being fun. Denham is doing his test camera shots of Darrow, and he's explaining a scene in which she's this island princess. The song has nothing to do with the story, it's just a fun detour from the story. But one thing that caught my eye was the fact that during this little sequence, they show Darrow jumping from a cliff into the sea, and the animation becomes incredibly similar to that of Ariel from Little Mermaid. The way the hair forays in the water, the way she keeps singing in the water, even the facial expressions... all this for a character Jodi Benson voices. There's no way that can be a coincidence. Maybe it's the movies strange way of saying I could be watching Little Mermaid right now. Something I actually really like. </p>
<p dir="ltr">Honestly, again I know I'm being a bit critical here, especially of a kids movie only 72 minutes long, but the movie does have a few strengths. One of them being that it kinda takes notes from both the original, and the 1976 remake. It mainly bases its film off 1933, but it actually directly mirrors a scene from 1976 when Kong takes Darrow to a waterfall to wash her. Unfortunately, the bond between Darrow and Kong isn't really developed, and Darrow is paved more into the frightened damsel category, rather than the tamer of the beast. They also have some fun with the iconic climax, even if it's rather silly at times. Like they have some silly clichés involving Darrow hanging onto the Empire State Building for dear life before she's caught by Driscoll. Another thing I kinda like is that they play with the net idea from 1976 with these huge zeppelins, which make Kong lose balance and fall off the building...and true to the kid friendly status of the film, they have Kong survive his fall. And strangely enough...everyone is kinda cheering when they see he survives. It's very weird. </p>
<p dir="ltr">You know, I know this movie is really dumb and stupid. At times, pretty bad. The animation isn't spectacular, the characters are pretty bland, as is the music and action of the film, it falls in that forgettable territory alongside Son of Kong and King Kong Escapes for me. But at the same time, I can't help but laugh at some of the things they did with this film with how stupid it got. It's balancing perfectly on that so bad that it's good line. Such is something I found completely absent in say...King Kong Lives. So you know what? You're gonna get by a bit easy today movie. I'm feeling generous. </p>
<p dir="ltr">The Mighty Kong gets a one and a half star rating from me. Again, this is by no means good. But there are a lot of fun things about this little direct-to-video release that made me watching this all these years later kinda...relaxed towards I guess. I wasn't joking when I aid it couldn't get worse than King Kong Lives, which I still haven't really forgiven. The limited defense I've heard towards it isn't exactly something I'll debate too much. This film...which was shorter and on a limited budget, much lower than the $10 million budget King Kong Lives had gave me more to enjoy. So if you were morbidly curious, found this at your local goodwill or whatnot? Hey...you might enjoy a single viewing. Make yourself a drink, and just sit back and enjoy how silly stupid this is. Because ironically enough...this may be the best animated portrayal of Kong you'll ever see. </p>
<p dir="ltr">Please feel free to request any film you'd like me to take a look at. Leave a comment down below expressing your own thoughts and feelings about the film, and as always, thanks for reading. </p>
<p dir="ltr">Join me next week when I tackle the first thirteen episodes of....Kong: The Animated Series. The things I do...</p>
<p dir="ltr"><b>Final </b><b>Verdict: 1.5/4</b></p>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10255843136139755590noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3347421577153149017.post-81523388616334050922017-02-16T16:32:00.001-08:002017-02-16T21:26:32.082-08:00REVIEW: The Great Wall<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjq7TRpnmJZtwee-No8RQ7PAuoHEWiluDFnNtio624Hk7uji1FDaiFLe1VEbHvIyFIXlC_GpBnS4MA981SdNRG7fq_fFfdVN6kiSqIsoqt7e97_4r_RjxTTHA9sg9mEEfFuhB4Toeda2xOk/s640/blogger-image--1782805605.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjq7TRpnmJZtwee-No8RQ7PAuoHEWiluDFnNtio624Hk7uji1FDaiFLe1VEbHvIyFIXlC_GpBnS4MA981SdNRG7fq_fFfdVN6kiSqIsoqt7e97_4r_RjxTTHA9sg9mEEfFuhB4Toeda2xOk/s640/blogger-image--1782805605.jpg"></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">The Great Wall is...silly dumb fun just as I predicted it would be, but I will say that it thankfully has a somewhat competent story, which is honestly more credit than I originally gave it credit for. Watching trailers for this, it really didn't do much to impress me. But hey, I enjoy being proven wrong sometimes. Don't get me wrong, the movie is still very dumb, but damn it if it's not a little fun in all its dumbness if that makes a hint of sense. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">The story is based on a couple mercenaries on search of legendary "black powder" which is said to be one of the most deadliest of weapons. A simple concept, but one I can get behind. The movie begins with these mercenaries being chased by...bandits I guess. We never really get an idea who was after them, but they literally get chased into the legendary Great Wall of China, in all its CGI and colorful army glory. And they find themselves in the middle of this conflict against this large reptilian army from...Heaven apparently? Honestly the reason behind this reptile army (that most definitely are NOT dragons) being in this movie and fighting the Chinese armies is rather shoe-horned in, and kinda gives off this lazy "greed is bad" message. Taken prisoners, they impress the Chinese with their fighting skills...their stupid dumb flawless fighting skills and Matt Damon decides to help fight against this large army, because apparently there's something worth fighting for here. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">I might as well come forward and say it, the movie's driving force is the action. And the action isn't even really all that good at times, more than it is just flashy, and over-the-top in laughable ways. The very first major battle we see on screen shows us how the army functions. By color code! If you're in black armor, you're a footsoldier, if you're in red, you're an archer, if you're in blue, you're this acrobatic female that literally bungee jumps from the wall with spears in your hand down toward the army below (that's not a joke either), and if you're in purple armor....the movie forgets all about you. The CGI is very much present here in this film. The effects are very flashy, and at times, they're likely just meant to make the 3D more impressive. But honestly, having just watched it in Imax, I'm not even sure if the 3D is that impressive. The effects zoom in on arrows shot from bows, acrobat females leaping from the wall, and Matt Damon throwing a shield around like he's Captain America. The movie isn't afraid to go all out in its action to the point where it would make the elves of the Lord of the Rings blush. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">The characters aren't terrible in this film, though they can be kinda cutouts. Matt Damon, who doesn't play a Chinese soldier, so there's no need for whitewashing criticism here, does a fine job portraying his character William, even if at times, his accent seems to disappear, and I will say that many of these Chinese actors, making their debut appearance in American theaters are actually a lot of fun to follow. The commander, Lin can be a lot of fun, but they're pretty much the only characters I cared about. They tried to get me to sympathize with this younger soldier boy who's often harassed by his superiors and whatnot, and looks up to Damon, but the two don't really bond in any way, shape, or form, and I don't think I'm spoiling anything here, but by the time he dies, I just kinda chuckled. Damon's friends in Ballard and Pero really also contribute very little to the story, which baffles me because at times, the movie focuses on them a lot. They have this generic escape plot that really goes nowhere. It contributes next to nothing in this film. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">However none of this explains why I went to see it in the first place. The creatures. I was eager to see the monsters portrayed in this film that the Great Wall was apparently trying to keep out...and they're honestly kinda disappointing. We're not given a lot of explanation into where they came from other than the gods sending them because of the greed of an emperor or something, and the behavior of the creatures just isn't really explained to the fullest detail. That and the designs themselves aren't that intimidating at times. They actually kinda remind me of D-War, and I'm sure some of you know how I feel about that movie... It's just your generic Zerg rush army, lead by a queen that's really nothing different from them, and that's it. There's no diversity so much, there's no flying creatures, no really large creatures, they don't have any fun with these creatures, which leaves me, a diehard creature feature lover, wanting a LOT more. Hell, these things don't even breathe fire. C'mooon...</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">Honestly, I know I'm being overly critical here, but I don't dislike the movie. I'm kinda "eh" towards it. It's got a lot of really fun stuff. I enjoyed the musical score, and despite it being dumb, I enjoyed the over-the-top no strings attached action, and like I said, the cast is very likable. But the overall story just isn't fleshed out enough, and there's just not enough meat on the bones of this movie to really say, yeah I'd watch it again. I had fun, but it didn't really leave me on a high, and once I was in my car, I has practically forgotten about it. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">The Great Wall is a two and a half star rating out of four for me. And that might even be a little generous. But I will say that if you're like me, a lover of creature features, you'll likely get a kick out of one viewing. The film has its saving graces. Maybe they're just more apparent to me after having recently sat through that King Kong Lives movie, but for what this dumb silly movie was, I enjoyed it. I doubt I'll watch it again, but I enjoyed it. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">Please feel free to request any film you'd like me to have a look at. Leave a comment down below expressing your own thoughts on the film, and as always, thanks for reading. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><b>Final Verdict: 2.5/4</b></div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10255843136139755590noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3347421577153149017.post-22578731834984536952017-02-11T10:21:00.001-08:002017-02-12T19:23:36.752-08:00THROWBACK REVIEW: King Kong Lives (1986)<p dir="ltr"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjvt9B2uHD5X8WkM8bljYGGKp2xpBjrsDdLtJMmUdTzValCFEuH3ByQv47oTQagc0OY4wKZpuJ-QsQgvXqAfUejt58SjH5O2HFx-M_jpg68uKsTz_oq4hsRK_cALEZWdjIkouxdxG5aptop/s640/blogger-image-1366080004.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjvt9B2uHD5X8WkM8bljYGGKp2xpBjrsDdLtJMmUdTzValCFEuH3ByQv47oTQagc0OY4wKZpuJ-QsQgvXqAfUejt58SjH5O2HFx-M_jpg68uKsTz_oq4hsRK_cALEZWdjIkouxdxG5aptop/s640/blogger-image-1366080004.jpg"></a></div>Prior to watching this, I was told the three following things. "King Kong Lives is a popcorn movie." "King Kong Lives is good cheesy fun." "King Kong Lives is amazing." Are any of these statements true? <p></p>
<p dir="ltr">....no. No they're not. </p>
<p dir="ltr">Dino De Laurentiis' sequel to his 1976 King Kong remake, King Kong Lives is absolute garbage. Easily earning its reputation as one of the worst Kong movies out there. Easily earning the terrible reputation it has amongst the Kong fanbase. And despite me not exactly liking Rotten Tomatoes as a source, it easily earns that 0% approval rating. Because the movie fucking sucks. And before anyone asks, yes. It is worse than Queen Kong. I don't think the question needs to be asked. That question being, "what's wrong with the movie?". The question should really be...what's NOT wrong with it? And I don't know the answer to that question. </p>
<p dir="ltr">Right off the bat this film does nothing but present questions that are never answered. The film takes place ten years after the events of the previous movie. Kong apparently has survived his fall from the World Trade Center, and has been kept alive in a coma by this...Institute in Atlanta. Because...that's a thing now. First thing in the movie. Makes. NO. Sense. Why would a school keep Kong alive? Especially if it's running them seven million dollars? Especially after Kong has proven to to be a dangerous animal? Did the government approve of this? Guess what. None of these questions are answered. We just gotta roll with it. We see Linda Hamilton, not playing Sarah Connor, as this doctor in charge of replacing Kong's heart I guess because it's failing, but because he's been in a coma for so long, not even a transplant will save Kong. Not without a blood transfusion of a similar species. What a coincidence, another giant ape is found immediately afterwards, and is a female. And it's all history from here folks. They capture the female, proceed with the transplant and transfusion, Kong wakes up, senses the female, and the two develop a bond, while being pursued by the military, and while Sarah Connor and discount Indiana Jones form a pointless bond of their own, and try to preserve both specimens. And Lady Kong gets pregnant, and has a mini-kong. This movie sucks. </p>
<p dir="ltr">The list of problems I have with this movie is endless. Like the surgery for Kong in the beginning of the movie. So they need to take his heart out. Does...no one here know just how much work would go into replacing the heart of a 50 foot ape? The bigger question is does Kong even have a sternum? Because if he does, it's about as thick as my dinner table at home. But then again, a simple bump on the head in a river knocks Kong out, and bloodies up the water in a few short seconds later in the movie. Might also explain how a tribe managed to tranquilize lady Kong with blow guns, or how Kong was in any way hurt by tiny little bullets of a handgun during the climax. Seriously with all this in perspective, it's a wonder Kong survived falling off the Twin Towers at all. Wait a moment...it just came to me. HOW did Kong not suffer much more damage falling from the top of the Trade Center? With as quick a recovery he has in this movie after being in a coma for ten years, I'm having a hard time buying the entire scenario of this movie! I've only been watching a few minutes and this movie is already trying my patience! Back on track, I cannot buy the surgery scene at all. They make it look way too simple. They literally just kinda set the heart in...no one making detailed checks to make sure it's in the exact place it needs to be. Again, this is a fifty foot ape. I think this job would have been a LOT dirtier, and bloody. They just seem to use giant cotton swabs and other oversized tools and make this job look so easy, when it would likely straight up fail. Instead, Kong just suffers a few minor setbacks during his very brief recovery (and I do mean very brief), before he senses the female and takes her away, quite literally in his arms. As strong as before. Who needs rest? Oh and they have this remote control that apparently can fix any complication of Kong's new heart...what is this? Really what is this? That's just....really stupid. </p>
<p dir="ltr">While I'm on the subject of the Kongs, how are they portrayed? No better. The costumes can stick out like a sore thumb. While not as bad as say Queen Kong, the suits aren't that convincing. Kong was better portrayed last movie, and granted the suit wasn't perfect, but the little things are portrayed better. Like his posture. In the previous movie, Kong is a bipedal, walking on two legs, much like the original. Here, they both walk on all four legs, though there are times they constantly switch back and forth. I don't really care if your Kong walks on two legs or four. I love the original in which he walks on two, and I love another movie in which he walks on four. The only problem here is that it creates a continuity clash. Did you not watch your own movie, Dino? They also have arm extenders which while they aren't as noticeable as they are in the Toho movies, do still stick out. Especially when combined with some of these fake-looking sets they use. Also apparently Kong is a meat eater now, despite the movie clearly showing him as a plant eater first. I mean...apes are herbivores. That makes sense. Then the movie says he can't live without eating about 1000 pounds of protein a day, before we see him munching on bunch of alligators (that's not an exaggeration either, we see them just dangling from his mouth). Even a person later on. In a really dumb...dumb scene. The roars...oh my God. I wanna take back all the bad things I said about the last film as far as it being occasionally annoying. The roars here are INCREDIBLY annoying. And what adds to this is thar the trailer advertised Kong with his previous roar. Here, it sounds nothing alike, and was likely produced by modulating human vocals. Every roar makes me wanna turn the volume off. They sound like shit. And it doesn't help that there are scenes with just constant roaring. I also really don't care how these two apes act. They behave a little too much like humans than they do apes. Kong carries her out like a newlywed husband, there are scenes in which they bond in which they part with each other and fake each other out, it just doesn't feel right. Times they look at each other, and I just wait for the romantic music cue. Hell, they even seem to understand the humans right down to their language. It's just not believable. I can't think of one thing I liked about how they portrayed them. Even the pregnancy of lady Kong is botched up. I mean she gives birth to an ape...the size of a man. Despite her abdomen being much bigger than that. I mean, what the hell else was in her belly, air? </p>
<p dir="ltr">But if the monsters weren't any good, the human characters of this movie are no better. And that's because practically everyone in this movie is just a one-dimensional asshole in this movie. Like the military Colonel. Who wants to kill Kong, because he's nothing more than a jarhead killing machine...<i>because </i><i>movie</i><i>. </i>Literally, the first line the movie uses to describe him, is that he'll shoot any civilian on sight that attempts to break through his perimeter....WHAT? How did this asshole become a Colonel? This guy should be in prison with behavior like that! Yeah, if there's any stragglers you find in the red zone, KILL 'EM ALL! Not like they're citizens or anything. No arrest, just good old fashioned cold blooded<i> murderrr...</i> Literally, the guy's first response to anything going on is to shoot the big monkey. And his jarhead soldiers are no better, I wanted to slap half of them. Like holy cow, stop being so stupid. Why are all of you being so stupid? And it goes beyond the soldiers. There's hunters who manage to briefly capture Kong, who torture him, and treat him like dirt and whatnot just for the sake of being evil, because movie (really it's just a stupid scene), there's the institute heads who have no idea what the hell they seem to be doing, the only two characters in this movie who aren't complete dicks are Sarah Connor and discount Indiana Jones, but their characters are so bland that I don't care about their characters at all. Their relationship literally comes out of nowhere. It sparks from a horrible one-liner from Sarah Connor. "We're primates too." What the hell, movie? What the hell? Sure we have zero development between our characters, but I conveniently have this sleeping bag for two people, despite being single, and you're the only other character who isn't a 100% asshole in this movie. You must be the one. I also found a lot more of the dialogue rather annoying. Like how Sarah Connor can apparently "feel" that Kong is alive, and how she argues that with the Colonel. This is one of those movies, people. </p>
<p dir="ltr">I can't even get a kick out of the action of this movie, because it only happens because the Colonel decides to just be a jarhead. Literally whenever any reason to stop shooting is brought to him, he usually replies with an answer along the lines of, "well I don't care, we're gonna shoot anyway". The climactic fight of this movie is so forced, that it stands out in all the wrong ways. It looks incredibly fake, I'm given literally no other reason to believe that this was supposed to be in this movie, other than to make Kong go out like a hero while his lover goes into labor. Well Kong is gonna die anyway, we might as well just have the movie show him going out in a blaze of glory. If you want Kong to go out in a blaze of glory, is it so much to ask that you not painfully force it? Why should I, the viewer, care about Kong's death, when he himself guaranteed it when he destroyed the one device that could have saved him in the first place? I didn't bat an eye when the military was shooting him up. Why? Because I already knew he was going to die. The jarhead military just made it more annoying. I couldn't have any fun watching Kong tear the jarhead military a new one. </p>
<p dir="ltr">Watching this movie, I cannot tell you how many times I rubbed my face in frustration. The fact that it dumbfounded me so much, to the fact that I actually went out of my way to find people defending this movie, is just mind-numbing. It's like me, finding someone from the Avatar: The Last Airbender fanbase, defending that atrocious live-action movie made back in the day. I understand that we have guilty pleasures. I myself have them. I get a bit of a laugh watching John Travolra's performance in Battlefield Earth, but I'm not going to defend it because even I know that movie is a bad movie. I enjoy a good amount of films by Roland Emmerich, but they're heavily flawed, and that needs to be pointed out. One particular review I saw for this film, pointed out the flaws of this film, which heavily outweigh anything good...if there is anything good, and defended the movie, giving it a six out of ten. Really? </p>
<p dir="ltr">They went on to say that they did their best with their limited budget to make the best movie they possibly could to rival their 1976 remake. An attempt to up the ante. Well even that remake was flawed. It can be a fun watch, but it's not as good as some make it out to be. I'm going to compare this sequel to another Kong sequel, Son of Kong. Son of Kong was bland and forgettable, but it did its best to give us a fun adventure for what it was. One of the primary reasons it suffered was that it was rushed into production and rushed into theaters, getting released the same year as its predecessor. This 1976 remake had ten years to come up with a quality sequel. Something to give us. And it fucked up at almost every turn. Not even the film's trailer makes it look any good. That blasted tagline "America's biggest hero is back" shown a total of four times, before being spoken a fifth time, to uninteresting scenes and atrocious music, it's a trailer that practically says, "Hey, you wanna see an awful movie? Here's one!" I cannot properly describe every problem I have with this movie, like how none of the original cast members return, nor do we know what became of them. Or how almost any question I had regarding story was never answered. Or how the government had practically zero involvement with the story at all. The most I saw was this signed document by the Secretary of Defense, allowing them to visit the female ape in captivity, before the jarhead military gives the finger to everyone and locks the place down. With so many faults, so many really fixable problems, I cannot defend a score of six out of ten. Not by a long shot. My rating will be much worse. </p>
<p dir="ltr">This movie had zero entertainment for me. It gave me zero reasons to be interested. It gave me zero laughs, even in an unintentional fashion. It gave me zero reasons to want to go back and watch it. And it is for this reason and more, that King Kong Lives will be the first movie I've ever reviewed to get the lowest rating I can give. Nothing. This is one of the worst movies I've ever seen. I can't even get angry at it, because from the start, I knew this one wasn't gonna be any good. Five minutes in, I was just counting the problems. Nothing of any quality saves this movie. The soundtrack wasn't bad, but it doesn't carry the movie in the way the soundtrack in say, Star Trek: The Motion Picture would. You can tell the actors are trying, but the movie they're in and the blandness of their characters didn't make me care once. When your movie does so little to keep my interest, so little to keep me from wanting to do something else, you can bet your movie will get a big fat zero in my book. And I'm sure some of you who found some saving graces in this film will try to convince me otherwise. But to put it bluntly for you...I don't care. If you find this film as a guilty pleasure, all the more power to you. Just keep it far away from me. I don't want to touch this movie ever again. </p>
<p dir="ltr">Please feel free to request any film you'd like me to take a look at down below. Leave a comment reviewing your own thoughts and feelings about the film, and as always, thanks for reading. </p>
<p dir="ltr">Well now that that shitty movie is finally behind me, I feel so much better. Like it is a relief to finally be done with this movie, you guys have no idea. Now I gotta figure out what I wanna do with the DVD copy I painfully had to buy to watch this. I don't know yet. But I'm telling you guys, there's no way it can get any worse than King Kong Lives in this marathon I'm putting myself in. So see you guys next week when we review a lost cartoon movie in the Kong franchise. An animated musical featuring the voice of Ariel from The Little Mermaid, "The Mighty Kong". See you next week. </p>
<p dir="ltr"><b>Final </b><b>Verdict: 0/</b><b>4</b></p>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10255843136139755590noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3347421577153149017.post-23016273941948128332017-02-02T15:21:00.001-08:002017-02-06T04:32:40.167-08:00THROWBACK REVIEW: King Kong (1976)<p dir="ltr"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgBlie-8lzuMekrvv-f7k3DsFf2SABvGzMPKj3SBFcBnP-6tE8anYZefkImq7iu7-gDXAcZc-eYE686V3OfC8Dz2ustLIIMwYygn1OG5cvG8ts_WZejLIWlYnQbaRXBIZcbwZkTv9TwWF9P/s640/blogger-image-1973399217.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgBlie-8lzuMekrvv-f7k3DsFf2SABvGzMPKj3SBFcBnP-6tE8anYZefkImq7iu7-gDXAcZc-eYE686V3OfC8Dz2ustLIIMwYygn1OG5cvG8ts_WZejLIWlYnQbaRXBIZcbwZkTv9TwWF9P/s640/blogger-image-1973399217.jpg"></a></div>1976 was a huge year for Kong. After getting the rights, film producer Dino De Laurentiis would approach director John Guillermin to direct his very own adaptation of King Kong. The resulting publicity which would develop around this picture, made it one of the most hyped films of its time. If you wanna picture a world without social media, crazy fandoms and other things that factor into film hype, you might get an idea over just how excited people were over this film. The promotions, the merchandising. It was on magazine covers, drinking glasses, burger commercials, lunch boxes, it even had its own drink! You can tell that they really were anticipating something huge with this picture. Another thing that caught everyone's attention was that the iconic climax was going to take place atop the then, very new twin towers of the World Trade Center (this move alone influenced some false marketing on the newest American Release of Godzilla VS Megalon, who had the film poster showing the two monsters battling atop the Trade Center). And as I read, it had a very distinctive tagline to get the viewers attention: "There is still only one King Kong." That tagline alone should really reach out to any fan of Kong. And this was the time of the blockbuster. Jaws had come out a year prior to this, and Star Wars was one year away. Kong's remake would ultimately prove to be a very decent success at the box office, and honestly, on paper this movie sounds wonderful. <p></p>
<p dir="ltr">A modern remake of King Kong. Just think of the possibilities in that idea. King Kong, set in 1976. I'm on board already. And I will give credit where credit is due. You can tell by the time you press play that they did everything they could to make this remake stand out on its own. The opening act of this movie is absolutely wonderful, and ironically enough, it wasn't until Kong was introduced to the film, that I began to see the problems. A lot of these problems are superficial, but they build up to the point where you're unsure what to think of this movie. Is it good? Is it bad? I'm right there with you. My best answer to you there is, the movie's not bad...but it could have been WAY better. </p>
<p dir="ltr">The opening for this movie again is wonderful. Where the original focuses on a film crew, intent on make this daring adventure of a picture, this film focuses instead on an expedition party hoping to find a vast source of oil on this mysterious island. Led by Fred Wilson (the Carl Denham of the movie), he's putting everything on the line in hopes of making a huge oil strike. On this journey, we're also introduced to stowaway Jack Prescott (Jack Driscoll) and Dwan (Ann Darrow) whom they rescue at sea. Getting to know these characters before they reach the island can be fun, and I can certainly say that the people who portray them, from Jeff Bridges, to Jessica Lange do a good job with their characters. Sure there's a little campy humor, but it does have its own little charm. My biggest gripe with them at certain points is that the characters don't exactly feel that developed. One thing I must also address is that I believe this movie has the best portrayal of the island natives that I've seen in any of these movies. It's not as realistic or crazy as Peter Jackson's remake, but nowhere near as stereotypical as the original film. And though I'll address this more when I review the movie, I never really cared for Jackson's portrayal of the Natives. I loved the costumes here. I loved the rituals. The sacrifice scene is arguably the best scene of the movie. I loved the portrayal of the Natives all around. It's things like this the film hammers. It just straight up hits the target, and really gets you into the mood of the picture. And speaking of the mood, the musical score of this picture isn't half bad either. There are a lot of times the music has such a presence in this film, such as with the Natives. But unfortunetaly, this is all before we see the first glimpses of Kong himself. Once Kong appears, things start to get hazy.</p>
<p dir="ltr">How is Kong? Like Toho, and Queen Kong, this movie went with a suit to portray Kong. And after watching three different companies attempting to portray Kong in a suit, I'm gonna lay it on the table for you. Kong just isn't gonna be convincing if you're gonna portray him with an ape suit. There's something missing. I will say that the suit doesn't look terrible, as it does in the Toho films or Queen Kong, but it's still not that convincing. Another thing that stands out is his roar. It's...wonderful. But at the same time it can be so damn annoying. Especially when it's drawn out as it can be (like during the climax). It really is a roar I really want to like, but there are times I just want to turn the volume down, or just yell out, "Oh my God, shut up!" It likely didn't help that the production team I guess was almost always on ends with each other. Where one was satisfied, the other wasn't and it can really show in this movie. </p>
<p dir="ltr">Another thing that stands out in almost all the wrong ways is Skull Island. Because...what is Skull Island? It's Kong's home. A mysterious island full of adventure, mystery, and of course, danger at every corner. And I don't believe I've ever seen such a bland setup for Skull Island in my life. It does a really good job building up the island, with it being hidden by this thick fog bank, and of course it hammers the island natives to a T, but after that, it's all downhill. Once our heroes go out in search of Dwan, there's really...not a lot that happens. The lush jungles are replaced by a lifeless forest, which can transform at times into this place that better resembles the surface of the moon. While at times this can be kinda cool, it is absolutely devoid of any life. Which isn't what Skull Island should be. And the biggest complaint here? There are absolutely NO dinosaurs. No monsters! Except for this one giant snake that Kong fights for roughly two minutes. Now you compare the numerous fights Kong had in the 1933 film to this and tell me what movie depicted Skull Island better. QUEEN KONG had dinosaurs. And sure they were shit, but it at least gave us something resembling Skull Island. I understand this film was trying to be its own thing, but it didn't even try with Skull Island. In a Kong movie, I don't think that's something I can look at lightly. </p>
<p dir="ltr">One thing this film did do somewhat good with however was the relationship between Kong and Dwan. Like other Kong movies, it attempts to put together this relationship between beauty and the beast. It's not perfect, and there are a few scenes that some might find rather awkward, but for the most part, I thought the film did a decent job with this little aspect. I particularly liked one part where Kong takes Dwan to a waterfall, and allows her to wash herself, before he attempts to dry her off. It's not a perfect scene, but I thought it had a little charm. It's small things like this that do keep me watching despite the numerous problems that begin to arise with this film after Kong shows up. </p>
<p dir="ltr">And of course...we gotta talk about the climax. Because I don't think a Kong climax has ever been so underwhelming. Despite such an incredible setup. Kong is of course captured and brought to New York to...perform in this circus owned by the oil company? I have no idea what their idea here is. And he wastes no time escaping the circus act (Literally, as soon as the guy says the cage he's in is escape-proof, Kong is tearing it apart. Was it made by Acme?), and going on an actually pretty fun rampage of the city. I loved how he tore the roofs off of trains and whatnot. It's a city rampage that's really kinda fun to watch, before we of course see him climbing not the Empire State Building, but the twin towers of the World Trade Center. </p>
<p dir="ltr">This was a move that was borderline genius. When the movie came out in 1933, the Empire State Building had only been open about two years. When this came out, the twin towers were also rather new, only open about five years. So giving them a little screen time was a good move. Unfortunetaly, the actual climax itself in which Kong fights off these military helicopters is...not that exciting. Through it all, he just kinda stands there getting shot into a bloody mess, in a surge of bad effects, and annoying roars. I also feel that the ending of this film just kinda feels pointless. There is no "beauty killed the beast" quote, it just kinda ends with our lead roles sad that Kong is dead. Really nothing more and nothing less. </p>
<p dir="ltr">Truth be told, I keep going back and forth on this movie. I want to like it. I really do. It's not perfect, but if you want a fun fact, this was the first Kong movie I ever saw. My mom actually kinda really likes this movie. I saw the entire climax, and it introduced me to King Kong. This movie is responsible for my love of giant monsters. Yet there's just so much missing. It's got heart, it's got a good cast, a good setup...but a lot of pieces to this puzzle are missing, which brings me to my final Verdict, issued with tough love. </p>
<p dir="ltr">I'm giving the 1976 Dino De Laurentiis remake of King Kong a two and a half star rating. It is way too much of a hit or miss film for me to score it any higher, but it doesn't deserve a lower rating. It needs to be said that I did enjoy watching this. And this is a movie I considered apart the worst giant monsters at one point. Perhaps I need to move it off the list now? For all I know, one more viewing of the film will make me hate it again. I don't know. But for what it is right now, I think this is one I can safely say is an interesting watch to say the least. If you're curious, you'll likely find something fun. There's still only one Kong alright, but I'm not gonna say it's in this film. </p>
<p dir="ltr">Please feel free to suggest any movies you'd like to see me review. Leave a comment down below expressing your own thoughts of the movie, and as always, thanks for reading.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Next week...(sigh) we take a look at the sequel to this film. Job me next week for King Kong Lives, a film said to be soonest the worst of the worst. </p>
<p dir="ltr"><b>Final </b><b>Verdict: 2.5/4</b></p>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10255843136139755590noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3347421577153149017.post-83136903806786332052017-01-27T06:44:00.001-08:002017-01-29T21:41:52.690-08:00THROWBACK REVIEW: Queen Kong (1976)<p dir="ltr"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjelrkPd0lWA-jRMjIqXRv5iaiA4lpGVinn58Wd0qfVJaTc9x3ipkvPB2l93vLSveKm6U4b6IcZLQQ3FzkDKburxHFBARjfSvigI_v0dUxDPrk47ZHYStiVCkamJI8fOo4Cjeu4ZVUEHNiN/s640/blogger-image-1902770221.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjelrkPd0lWA-jRMjIqXRv5iaiA4lpGVinn58Wd0qfVJaTc9x3ipkvPB2l93vLSveKm6U4b6IcZLQQ3FzkDKburxHFBARjfSvigI_v0dUxDPrk47ZHYStiVCkamJI8fOo4Cjeu4ZVUEHNiN/s640/blogger-image-1902770221.jpg"></a></div>Queen Kong is...a King sized stinker. Really, who thought this would be a good idea for a movie? If you want an idea of what the hell I just watched, just think to last year when the reboot for Ghostbusters came out. Remember all the controversy? I'm not gonna talk about it, because I really didn't care either way about it, but Queen Kong is essentially doing what the Ghostbusters would do last year. Only...times ten. Where the Ghostbusters would just say "Hey, we're gonna take the main characters of the original film and do that film if they were women", Queen Kong said, "I'm gonna do King Kong. Only I'm going to reverse the roles of everyone!" I kid you not, you play this movie after watching King Kong, and the roles of practically everyone are reversed. Without the risk of sounding sexist...there are a LOT of women in this picture. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, but the overall film that they're in, the lazy production, the dumb and unfunny jokes, the pop cultural references that go nowhere, before it all just train wrecks into this climax that makes absolutely no sense, really make this a film I wanna give a giant middle finger to. And truthfully, part of me was actually hoping for a decent laugh at least. I love British humor, and this film was a British feature. But my God...talk about high expectations.<p></p>
<p dir="ltr">The film is of course the story of King Kong, only gender-swapped. We have this director by the name of Luce who is looking for a gentle, handsome man for her picture, which brings her upon this hippie boy wonder, named Ray. She drugs him, kidnaps him, and takes him to this island of natives who worship this huge ape monster named Kong, and yes, it's a she. Gorilla boobies and all (I wouldn't normally point this out, but the film does, so I will too). And it looks like shit. Like the Toho films, this film would use a suit to portray their Kong character, and it's just so inconsistent, so unconvincing, that I won't bother talking anymore about it. The dinosaurs of the film aren't any better either. The costumes straight up look like paper mache, and may very well be as such. You can tell the film is on a budget. But come on movie...these costumes just look half-assed! Anyway back to the story that's the same as King Kong, Queen Kong...or Queenie as Ray calls her, falls in affection with hippy boy wonder, and from there, the film just becomes this big romance chase of hippy boy wonder, because apparently the director Luce finds him attractive as well. Yeah guys, the fact that Queenie falls in affection with Ray is about the only real similarity that this movie has with King Kong. </p>
<p dir="ltr">The production of this movie is so unbelievably cheap that it became insultingly noticeable. The production of this movie makes some of the worst Godzilla movies out there look incredible by comparison. For example, in the beginning of the movie, the crew of the ship (all female) decide to have a musical number about their ship, because movie. There's nothing wrong with the song really, other than it being utter shit, and the choreography being incredibly lazy (the girls honestly don't look like they're even trying), but towards the end of this musical number, I began to notice something rather peculiar. The instrumental track and the vocal track were getting off sync. So the girls were singing ahead of the actual music. Did...no one realize this? Anyone at all? That is a fix that would take me less than five minutes in editing. I've already talked about the horrible suits and unconvincing dinosaurs, so I won't bother with them again. The costumes. Holy crap, I don't know if this was done intentionally or whatnot, but the costumes of the Natives are even more stereotypical than the original 1933 film. Was that intentional??? They're terrible! Ray wears this really stupid "attractive" costume, and compares himself to Elton John. Ray, you take that back, Elton John may not be a fashion master, but he dresses way better than you. It's also worth noting that the musical score is absolute shit, and so are most of the sound effects. There's no memorable theme whatsoever. It's just a score to tell you, "Hey, it's the seventies!" Though I'll give whatever band came up with the title song some credit. I hate the lyrics of it, but it's decently jamming. Just wish there was a bit more creativity and not so much adolescence in lyrics like "She's the queenie queenie for my weenie." Well done there...</p>
<p dir="ltr">I'm getting off track here...</p>
<p dir="ltr">For a British Comedy, there is very little comedy here. I'm a huge fan of British humor. I grew up introduced to Monty Python from my father, and I'm a huge fan of comedies by both Simon Pegg and Nick Frost, and one of my favorite YouTubers is Alex of I Hate Everything, who lives in Britain himself (and ironically enough, is the guy behind the "Because movie" catchphrase that I love so much). So I was hoping for that British charm here. But it's incredibly absent. The film is absolutely littered with unfunny jokes, political jabs that I just rubbed my face in frustration to, and pop cultural references that are there...because they're apparently funny. It's incredibly disappointing. I can't say there weren't times I didn't feel a smile forming or let out a chuckle, or simply say "Ha ha...", but most of these moments seemed to be at the beginning of the film. As the film went on, I realized there was very little meat on these bones. And I think I have it figured out. It's because of Ray. Almost half the jokes of this movie are given by him, and the guy's just not funny. He lacks any charm to really be able to drop a punchline about Jimmy Carter. A lot of the time, he just looks blazed out of his mind, to the point that makes you wonder if all those joints he's asking for in the movie are actually real joints. </p>
<p dir="ltr">But I think the most confusing thing about this film is its climax, believe it or not. After an unfunny line by Ray, about how he wishes the Empire State Building was there, Queenie decides to scale Big Ben. Okay, I can get behind that. But instead of this action climax we all think we're gonna get, it quickly transforms into this "rights for women" message that falls flat. Look, I'm for Gender Equality. The fact that we're still having problems with it is really kinda sad nowadays, but this film just...isn't the film to preach this. Seriously. Queenie scales Big Ben, and Ray begins preaching from this Helicopter PA system that women don't have to be objectified, or taken advantage of anymore and whatnot, and it falls flat. Why? BECAUSE IN THIS MOVIE, THE WOMEN ARE PRETTY MUCH IN CONTROL OF EVERYTHING. Seriously, a scene earlier, Queenie has to save Ray from Luce who's trying to force herself on Ray. If anything, Ray is the one being used, objectified, and taken advantage of. But all of a sudden, the film forgets this and it has all these women protesting in the streets against the power of men, and for Queenie to be set free, and for women to stand up, and I just don't get why. Was this film trying to be a film for women's rights? Why does the film go this route immediately after Ray is almost raped by one? Am I missing something here? Why is my brain hurting by thinking about this? I don't care anymore, I want to get this over with. Queenie is of course set free amidst all the protests, she takes Ray back to her jungle island home, Luce watches in sadness before wondering if they'd allow her to join in a threesome, and as Brendon Tenold would say, Ray likely dies by crushed pelvis. It's funny because giant bestiality everyone! Just the joke to go out on! Fuck this movie.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Queen Kong gets a half star rating out of four. And the only reason it's not getting that lowest rating I can possibly give is because despite almost everything in this film absolutely sucking, the film does have a few laughs. I had a legit chuckle with the policemen when Queenie is walking through London. And despite it being such a lame joke, I chuckled when Luce talked about how her films have "not one wave" before someone obviously just throws a bucket of water at her. It's the British Charm in those silly jokes I could get behind. But literally nothing else. And to my knowledge, this film was pretty much doomed from the start. It never saw theatrical release when Dino De Laurentiis, producer of the next week's movie and RKO copyright holder of King Kong at the time took legal action against the film. It had some theatrical runs in southern Europe, and has a cult following in Japan but that's it. If you were anywhere morbidly curious about this film, listen well. Do not, I repeat...DO NOT go looking for a DVD. You can find the entire thing on YouTube. For free. That's how I watched it, and that's how I'll tell anyone else who wants to watch this shitty film to watch it. YouTube likely doesn't deserve this shit in its database, but it's there. Take advantage of it. </p>
<p dir="ltr">Please feel free to request any films you'd like to see me review. Leave a comment down below expressing your thoughts on the film, as all comments are appreciated, and as always, thanks for reading. </p>
<p dir="ltr">Next week in the Kong-a-thon...King Kong sees his very first remake, as he returns to the States. Next week, Paramount takes on the roles of giving us King Kong, in the 1976 remake. See you then. </p>
<p dir="ltr"><b>Final </b><b>Verdict: 0.5/4</b></p>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10255843136139755590noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3347421577153149017.post-25961088767797073932017-01-19T15:56:00.001-08:002017-01-22T21:13:05.507-08:00THROWBACK REVIEW: King Kong Escapes (1967)<p dir="ltr"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjD5cHBLyMq1J2dBSQFiqsTyA9X_Fw21sJFgYfHIW7fL7Pd9YEmVqxMjdMm7LfogcRPLM6HJ90nJC44mQ_ifvLkh-_v58F6J1p-FrBl8iJWYrfMAS3VeVX32JmhwFVzMNQ-4CZiko7iO7MB/s640/blogger-image--1675648148.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjD5cHBLyMq1J2dBSQFiqsTyA9X_Fw21sJFgYfHIW7fL7Pd9YEmVqxMjdMm7LfogcRPLM6HJ90nJC44mQ_ifvLkh-_v58F6J1p-FrBl8iJWYrfMAS3VeVX32JmhwFVzMNQ-4CZiko7iO7MB/s640/blogger-image--1675648148.jpg"></a></div>Well it's kinda hard to talk about this dumb film without talking a bit about its backstory. In 1966, King Kong debuted in his very first cartoon show, simply known as "The King Kong Show". It was made by American Film Company, Rankin/Bass Productions, but also partnered with Toei Animation over in Japan to collaborate with the show. If you're unfamiliar with Rankin/Bass, they did the cartoon renditions of both "The Hobbit", and "Return of the King". They also did "Mouse on the Mayflower". Still not ringing a bell? Okay, they did those stop-motion animation Christmas specials you love so much like "Santa Claus is Coming to Town" and "Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer". Yeah that company. And Toei is behind Dragonball which I don't care for, so moving right along. They had a King Kong Cartoon. I really wanted to review this, but honestly, the show lacks any depth for me to devote a full review to it. Each story is around six minutes long, is a rather simple story about this group of people, who team up with King Kong to fight this evil supercriminal mastermind named Dr. Who (....no not THAT Dr. Who), and end up foiling his plans after a fight with dinosaurs or whatnot. It's not exactly the best show out there, but it's harmless. The animation is bland, the characters are bland, the action is bland, but again, there's nothing really condemning about it. If it had more depth to the overall story, and if I could find it, I'd probably give it a review. But it doesn't, and I can't. <p></p>
<p dir="ltr">Well after King Kong VS Godzilla, Toho maintained an interest in producing King Kong movies, and partnered up with Rankin/Bass. They came forward with a script for a new King Kong movie they wanted to make, but because Rankin/Bass felt the movie didn't reflect the spirit of the show, they rejected it. The script would move forward and become "Ebirah, Horror of the Deep", otherwise known as "Godzilla VS The Sea Monster", another movie I debated long and hard about reviewing in this Kong-a-thon. Why? Because the movie really is kinda...terrible in the sense that it doesn't at all feel like a Godzilla film. You can tell that it was meant to star King Kong, despite the fact that Godzilla is right there. He's got all the King Kong characteristics. It stands as one of the first examples in which I really believe...they just didn't care. There was no rewrite, there was no edit, they shoe-horned in Godzilla in place of Kong, and the movie sucked. But...Toho didn't give up. They came forward with another script for a Kong movie that did get approved and the result was "King Kong Escapes". And my God they tried...</p>
<p dir="ltr">Right off the bat, something feels off about this film. One thing I guess I should say is that this seems to be a different incarnation of Kong than what we saw in King Kong VS Godzilla five years prior to this. Here, King Kong lacks his electricity powers, I think his size is smaller, and it just feels more like a standalone film than it does anything else. I guess that's not a bad thing, but my God, there is something missing from this film. And I can't put my finger on it. Based loosely from the cartoon I just mentioned, King Kong Escapes focuses on this group of criminal masterminds looking to take over the world by creating superweapons from this substance called Element X. Lead by Dr. Who, who often enjoys reminding you who he is, he builds a large robot monkey with the sole purpose of digging up this ore. I don't know why he didn't just build a digging machine, but I guess we need our Tokyo Tower climax later on. So...nice big metal monkey there, Dr. Who. Your evil plans will forever be a mystery to me. </p>
<p dir="ltr">I'm not gonna bother hiding it, the characters of this movie are atrocious. The only character I found any likable traits in was Dr. Who, mainly because of how cartoonishly evil he is. The way he speaks, his motivation, his goals, he even has a decent evil laugh now and then. He's an absolute riot. Too bad he's the only memorable character. The heroes of this film I wanna say are barely even a thing in this film. You have the woman that Kong of course takes an interest in, but she feels much like the girl from King Kong VS Godzilla, in that she's there just to be a damsel. There's no depth to her character out any of the other characters I might add. And joining her are her love interest, and this other generic captain explorer character...who are also in this movie. The most confusing character however is this...anti-hero-villain woman who's often telling Dr. Who what to do. I have no idea what to call her. At first she's this villain looking to take over the world. Then because movie she's suddenly questioning her morals. Then because movie, she's a villain again, threatening Dr. Who. Then because movie she tries to romance one of the heroes. Then because movie she starts turning to a good guy? Look I don't need to explain anymore that her character is poorly executed and just sucks in general. Her motivations in this film are absolutely stupid. They make no sense. She's the worst character of the film. One thing I found hilarious however was that the lead hero roles are obviously American actors. I was treated to an unintentional hilarious realization that they themselves were dubbed in Japanese. It can be hilarious to see them obviously speaking English, only to hear a Japanese voice actor dub them. It's the first time I've actually seen that. </p>
<p dir="ltr">The effects of this film, my God. Much like King Kong VS Godzilla, they're incredibly dated, and don't hold up, but unlike King Kong VS Godzilla, they stand out way more. There are effects that are hilariously bad. Like Kong's or Mechi-Kong's obviously blue-screened hand quickly grabbing the woman in a fashion that would likely kill her. I also loved how Monda Island, where Kong lives, had giant lawn grass everywhere, and only one...ONLY ONE NATIVE. Maybe the rest of the Natives saw the script for this movie and gave it the finger. The suit of Kong again just isn't convincing. The first time we see him, we just see his eyes open from a sleep, and he looks half-dead. I will say that Mechi-Kong is actually pretty cool as far as effects and looks are concerned. He has the most convincing costume of the film. It doesn't stand out nearly as much as Kong. The suit for that was well done. </p>
<p dir="ltr">And the action of the film can be fun. I enjoyed the climax well enough. Watching Kong battle Mechi-Kong on Tokyo Tower, watching it rock back and forth was very entertaining, even if it got rather easy to mock what was going on. I also enjoyed the first appearance of Godzilla fan favorite monster, Gorosaurus. The battle between him and Kong is pretty cool, though the death of Gorosaurus could have been better. Really dull sound effect for Kong prying the jaw apart. But as fun as some of the action is, it's also incredibly lacking. One thing I found disappointing was that there is absolutely no city rampage scene. Sure we get the battle on Tokyo Tower, and Mechi-Kong destroys a building upon entrance, but that's it. There's no rampage despite it leading us to believe there would be one. I'll also say the military of this film did the worst possible job evacuating the city in any of these movies out there. They show the evacuations, then all of a sudden all the civilians are back to witness the Tower battle? Shouldn't they be gone? Oh well, there wasn't any rampage. No big loss. Oh and by the way the musical score by Akira Ifukube is not in any way memorable in this film. Rather disappointing honestly. </p>
<p dir="ltr">I know I'm being rather critical here, but honestly, I can't say this film is completely bad. One thing I must credit the film for doing is being among the first films to attempt to develop the relationship between the woman, and Kong. It's the first film in which the woman he finds attraction to, isn't always afraid of Kong. In the movie, she volunteers to be picked up by him to attempt to calm him down. She develops this playmate relationship in a way, but at the same time, she can still hold to that fear. It's really weird. Eventually, she pretty much can give verbal commands to Kong. That's right, I forgot to mention that King Kong in this movie precisely just understands human language. The movie isn't all bad. It's not strong, but I can see it working as a kids film perhaps. This was after all based off a rather bland kids cartoon from back in the day. This film didn't have a lot to go off of. So as bad as it is, I don't blame Toho for it. It's not their fault. I can see effort being put into this. Their desire to do Kong justice is still there. The respect, the love, the want to do good with Kong does still show. Unfortunetaly, it's just too bland, too dated, and too...dull to really be anything more than a kids adventure. And not a very good one at that. So I can't be getting generous with the verdict. </p>
<p dir="ltr">King Kong Escapes is a one and a half star rating out of four for me. Yeah, pretty dang bad. I'm at a bit of a loss for words on this one actually. You can tell it was trying to go for that child audience again. Much like its predecessor, but where King Kong VS Godzilla succeeded with likable characters, fun action, and creative ideas, this film feels held back. It makes me wish Ebirah was indeed a Kong film. It likely would have faired much better than this film. This film wasn't allowed to experiment, it wasn't allowed to do much of anything to make it stand out. And the blame for that lies solely with Rankin/Bass. And unfortunetaly this would be the final film that Toho would make with Kong. They wanted him to appear in the Godzilla finale, Destroy All Monsters, but their license on the character ran out for them. They'd also try to remake King Kong VS Godzilla during the Heisei era, but couldn't get the rights, and instead went with King Ghidorah (and we all know how I feel about that one). King Kong Escapes was his last trial in Japan, and one that really just didn't do it for him. Not from me. And I'm sad to say that. I really do wish it could have been different. Perhaps one day again, Kong will return to Toho. Until that day though...keep watching King Kong VS Godzilla...and stay away from this movie. </p>
<p dir="ltr">Please feel free to suggest any films you'd like me to look at. Leave a comment down below expressing your own thoughts on the film, and as always, thanks for reading. </p>
<p dir="ltr">Kong's tenure in Japan has ended, but he isn't going back to the States yet...nope. Great Britain attempted to get in on the Kong franchise. However...they took creativity into their own hands, and decided to switch a lot of things up. Did you ever wanna see Kong as a girl? Well they thought you would. Next week, I'm taking on the parody film, "Queen Kong". See you then.</p>
<p dir="ltr"><b>Final </b><b>Verdict: 1.5/4</b></p>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10255843136139755590noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3347421577153149017.post-86573069020392856922017-01-13T09:27:00.001-08:002017-01-15T22:02:23.259-08:00THROWBACK REVIEW: King Kong VS Godzilla (1962)<p dir="ltr"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh8HSAl2dKSlX1m0LwXPF3emLXhkhAjTzZCcS2m7ZUAljShmzC-I2DQYpnyYfRuEmuJrtmm-oyhaKHDWg2lMBDWaZ1NQ6oWPQLcl5nDA_Oe78PeKIQeb7ujX7JS7ao-cscVuNiYpvwqRGgs/s640/blogger-image--163636962.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh8HSAl2dKSlX1m0LwXPF3emLXhkhAjTzZCcS2m7ZUAljShmzC-I2DQYpnyYfRuEmuJrtmm-oyhaKHDWg2lMBDWaZ1NQ6oWPQLcl5nDA_Oe78PeKIQeb7ujX7JS7ao-cscVuNiYpvwqRGgs/s640/blogger-image--163636962.jpg"></a></div>The popularity of King Kong after 1933 was apparent. It was an instant box office success, turning up a hefty profit and a bad sequel. Despite the minor setback, King Kong proved he was still on top for years. He saw his first theatrical re-release in 1938, though it would have certain parts censored as certain shots of the original film we're no longer appropriate at the time(mainly shots of Kong biting and attacking people, and removing parts of Ann's dress). Kong would also see theatrical re-releases during 1942, and 1946. Yet despite this success, he was not yet much of a pop culture icon. It wasn't until his theatrical re-release in 1952, that his rise to stardom would be apparent, and that his influence would finally start to be seen in film and culture. It was easily the most successful re-release of his time, and don't think I need to explain how or why. But for those who are in need of a refresh, let's talk about what happened after his global theatrical re-release in 1952.<p></p>
<p dir="ltr">King Kong's 1952 global showing would be a worldwide phenomenon, getting named "Movie of the Year" by Time Magazine. But one place Kong would find enormous popularity in would be Japan. Many people, who would work on a very iconic Japanese film would draw influence from King Kong. They were in such awe from the film that they wanted to shoot their film like just like that film. Unfortunetaly as they were pressed for time, they could not. But the resulting film they created would explode around the world, and this film of course, was Gojira. Otherwise known as Godzilla. Godzilla would quickly rise in popularity, and with his rise to stardom apparent, and with Kong's popularity still up there, someone around the world asked a question. If King Kong met Godzilla...what would happen? </p>
<p dir="ltr">Well, thanks to an unused idea from Willis O'Brien (in which King Kong would meet and fight a giant version of Frankenstein's Monster), and the people over at Toho (many of whom wanted very much to shoot a King Kong movie), we got an answer in a film that to date, remains the biggest box office hit featuring Godzilla. A film that not only featured two very popular monsters, but helped launch the Godzilla franchise to even higher stages of popularity. We got the film, King Kong VS Godzilla. A film with such a legacy behind it, that to present day, fans of both franchises continue to debate the fight, and who was meant to be the true winner. There are many urban legends surrounding this film, many which say that there's a Japanese cut where Godzilla wins and other similar myths, but let the record show that this is untrue. It may not stop the debates but...spoiler alert, King Kong wins. It's really that simple. Japan themselves advertised the film as Kong being the winner. Why? Because he was the more popular monster at the time, and at this time, Godzilla wasn't really quite in his hero stages yet. Hell, even the movie reminds you that Kong is just an animal, but Godzilla is a "monster" born from radiation. There's absolutely no purpose to this line other than to remind the viewer that Kong is the good guy, and Godzilla is the bad guy. So...there. Accept it. Godzilla lost to the giant ape. With all this said, how's the actual movie? </p>
<p dir="ltr">Well watching it again (and to those wondering, I watched the original Japanese cut), I really wasn't expecting much, but for a while, I was very much pleasantly surprised with the film. It is very fun. Sure the plot kinda disintegrates towards the end, but you can tell there was a lot of effort thrown into this film to get King Kong just right. I'm not sure they got everything right, but you can tell there was a lot of effort from Japan here, not only to do justice to Kong, but to make him a match for Godzilla, and to keep the spirit of the monster present within the film. They're very hit or miss with this unfortunetaly. One thing I didn't really care for was the Kong suit. While I understand that they were on a budget, you can tell that it's very much obviously a suit. The teeth don't always line up, the mouth can hang open, but one thing I hated was the arms. There were times the arms looked disjointed or out of place. I think the guy wearing the suit was holding arm extensions at times because the arms at times take an unnatural bend towards the elbow area. Like something getting pulled down by gravity. I also never liked how the fists never closed whenever Kong beat on his chest. Surely this could have been fixed guys. It's just not as threatening or intimidating as it normally is. My final criticism to Kong in this movie is that while we get plenty of hints to why Kong has the power that he does in this movie, it's never explained. I want someone to tell me exactly why electricity helps Kong fight better. The movie doesn't explain. It just kinda shows Kong munching on power lines and getting revived by lightning (lightning that doesn't strike anywhere close to him). But regardless of my criticisms, you can definitely tell that again, they did put a lot of effort into his behavior and actions. From him finding a certain woman attractive, to him defending island natives who revere him as a god, Japan really did do their homework for keeping the spirit of Kong alive in this movie. Is it the same Kong we're used to? No. But it does the monster justice. It almost makes me ashamed of our Godzilla 1998 movie just a bit more. </p>
<p dir="ltr">Speaking of Godzilla, his suit is about as convincing as Kong's honestly. I could be mistaken, but I feel that this suit they used is much different than what they used before. It seems...lighter. Which honestly, I think kinda hurts this film a bit because there are times you can most definitely tell that it is a suit. The rubber can bend in places it shouldn't bend, the face, like Kong's, just isn't that convincing, it just could have been polished up a bit more. One thing I actually had to chuckle at was that there are times in the movie that Godzilla flails his arms at times, and you can hear the rubber hitting. You'd think something like that would get cleaned out in editing. And it's not just in one point of the movie. It happens numerous times. I also am a bit lost to the special effects of this film. Particularly that around Godzilla's breath. It's not nearly as bad as Godzilla VS The Sea Monster, but I do think they could have made it slightly more convincing than a slightly blue mist. </p>
<p dir="ltr">From monsters to story, does it hold up? Well right off the bat, I can say that the story was fun to follow while it lasted. It's not the greatest story ever told and it's not exactly told the best, but it does have a lot of charm. The only real weakness it has, is that once the monsters start fighting, the story is practically dropped. All human characters are reduced to literally nothing but spectators as both King Kong and Godzilla fight. This isn't an exaggeration. Despite some fun aspects in this story, about halfway through the film, the characters do nothing but watch the monsters from afar, or argue over who's the stronger monster. You know...like real life Godzilla fans. And once the fighting is over, they literally just shoe-horn in a message about treating earth and nature better, despite that not once in the film is the treatment of the environment ever mentioned. I find this lazy, even for early Godzilla. </p>
<p dir="ltr">This is a bit of a shame because I was actually quite interested in the characters of this film. While the film has its fair share of characters that are forgettable, I forgot how much of a riot the head of the pharmaceutical company was. I'm not sure I follow his plan with Kong, mainly because of his dialogue. At first he's looking to boost his ratings for this science tv show he has, then he's pretty much announcing Kong as a brand sponser, it's a very confusing plot, but you don't care because of how funny this guy can be. You can easily detect that this movie was going for a much more light-hearted feel. It's goofy and silly, but in all the right ways. Other characters really aren't so essential, like one of the sister characters that Kong finds attractive. This girl serves no purpose for the film other than to be the token damsel in distress. She struggles clumsily across a river fleeing from Godzilla, she is captured by Kong to try and pay homage to the climax of the original movie, but seeing how beauty doesn't kill the beast here, and seeing how she's nowhere near as memorable as scream queen Ann Fray, the scene kinda feels unnecessary to me. There's also the fact that the size of the woman in the hand of Kong just isn't accurate. With the size of Kong, she'd be a lot smaller than that doll we see. And yes, you can obviously tell that Kong is holding what is likely a barbie doll. Gotta love budgets. And thanks to the fact that there's likely a 200 pound actor in that gorilla suit, Kong just kinda stands on what amounts to a common courthouse, rather than scaling a tall skyscraper. Just not that exciting.</p>
<p dir="ltr">I think my final criticism of the movie goes to the unfortunate aspect of time. This movie really hasn't aged well. At all. I normally don't criticize movies based on age, but I think I have a bit of a right to with this one, because this film is infamous for how poorly preserved it is. In 1970, director Ishiro Honda prepared an edited version of this film for a film festival, but made a terrible mistake of making actual edits to the films original negative. As a result, a lot of the footage was lost, as was some of the highest quality shooting. I'm willing to bet none of us have seen the original theatrical release of this film. You can tell there are problems in the editing of this film. There were times the frame jumped for a quick second, or there were times that I felt certain frames were just straight up missing. Ishiro really should have done a better job preserving this film. It also needs to be said that other effects just aren't so convincing. Kong's blinking eyes, scenes involving obvious blue screens, obvious reused shots, you can really tell this film has not aged well at all. </p>
<p dir="ltr">But that's literally all I can really say as far as criticism is concerned. Some flat characters, a plot that kinda falls apart at the end, and effects that don't hold up nowadays. Everything else is just way too fun. I loved how Kong got his own Tokyo rampage scene. And they made it rather unique, too! Where Godzilla or literally any other monster in Toho's lineup will just kinda slowly walk through the city in question, slowly raining down destruction and whatnot like a giant lumbering tank, King Kong when he enters Tokyo, straight up RUNS through it. It's a nice little break from the mold that I really liked. I also loved how at one particular point, he just straight up punched one of the buildings down. He picks up trains like Godzilla, he scales the small model town buildings, it's all fun to watch, even if the homage to the original climax again, does fall a bit flat. I know I've said it already, but you can definitely tell that Toho was looking to get the character of Kong dead on. And the fights with Godzilla? They're fun, entertaining, and cheesy hilarious. Yeah due to the effects, I'm getting similar feelings that I'd get watching Arena from Star Trek, but I can look past that. You can tell that these fights are meant to be slightly comedic, while maintaining their intense fighting atmosphere. It's a wonderful treat to behold. </p>
<p dir="ltr">And one thing I'm gonna shower this film with praise on is Akira Ifukube's music score. This is the film that would help define some of the most iconic music in the Godzilla films for years to come. While we don't hear the iconic theme from 1954 here, you do hear a very iconic piece that would soon become part of that iconic theme. I think every fan kinda knows that piece I'm talking about. And if that's not enough, Kong's theme is absolutely haunting. From the time you press play on the movie, you're treated to this absolutely incredible theme, which though simple, shows the intimidation, the mystery, the all around atmosphere of the King Kong character. The sounds of the choir chanting over those strings, tribal drums, timpani, while the winds and brass give powerful blasts in the background is one of the coolest pieces of music of the entire Godzilla franchise. Incredible job from Akira for putting this score together. </p>
<p dir="ltr">If you put everything together, King Kong VS Godzilla remains a bit of a fan favorite, and one of the biggest films of the Godzilla franchise for a reason. It's by no means the best, but for me personally, despite its flaws, it's certainly up there. Even the American version is rather enjoyable. Aside from dubbing difference, the American version did add their own particular touch to the film. They added scenes of people talking on the news comparing the two monsters, how Godzilla is brute force, and how Kong is more of a thinking animal, and how they used footage from a film called "The Mysterians", to help enhance the earthquake at the very end of the film. They also rechanged sequences, and unfortunetaly almost completely replaced the Ifukube score with music from films such as "Creature from the Black Lagoon", "Frankenstein Meets the Wolfman", among many many many other films, but regardless of it, you can tell that they too were interested in presenting this film as best they could for their respective audiences. And it's fun to compare the two versions.</p>
<p dir="ltr">I'm giving King Kong VS Godzilla a solid rating of three stars out of four. While I wish I could have given it a higher rating, it is held back by the problems I've talked about. But for King Kong fans and Godzilla fans alike, you should already know that it's not any statement to say you shouldn't watch this, because the opposite couldn't be more true. This really is one of those pinnacle essential monster films to go and see. It likely helped boost King Kong's popularity higher than it already was, and for Godzilla? Well...do I need to say? The big guy's legacy has long since been sealed, and it likely owes a lot of that success to this movie alone. It remains the biggest box office hit of the franchise, and in all of Toho's 29 Godzilla films, it is the biggest hit it has to date. And with a remake finally heading our way in three short years? You can bet that there's no one more anxious, more willing, more excited to see how they will make this already fun movie, into something even more fun. It is about damn time...</p>
<p dir="ltr">Please feel free to request any film you'd like to see me take a look at. Leave a comment explaining your own thoughts and opinions of the film, as they are all appreciated, and as always, thanks for reading. </p>
<p dir="ltr">King Kong's tenure in Japan didn't end with his victorious battle over Godzilla. Join me next week when Toho partners with American film company Rankin/Bass, in which Kong takes on a mechanical menace. See you next week when I analyze the film, "King Kong Escapes"! See you then!</p>
<p dir="ltr"><b>Final </b><b>Verdict: 3/</b><b>4</b></p>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10255843136139755590noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3347421577153149017.post-42082547182225946402017-01-06T07:50:00.001-08:002017-01-06T10:59:55.652-08:00REVIEW: Sing<p dir="ltr"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjwADzpPTgYhcFLj4bhHd8bvrrJoN470NcHZHDjzR646cfl66UQpm01W8aEsf4vR6bW9LswEi9E5acZFS9dusYMC_nF9hQ3gxTZKz-7NzR08ebuqtn_RfJH6J03fQSe5bKCCrohsxSx3G6Z/s640/blogger-image-1932274807.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjwADzpPTgYhcFLj4bhHd8bvrrJoN470NcHZHDjzR646cfl66UQpm01W8aEsf4vR6bW9LswEi9E5acZFS9dusYMC_nF9hQ3gxTZKz-7NzR08ebuqtn_RfJH6J03fQSe5bKCCrohsxSx3G6Z/s640/blogger-image-1932274807.jpg"></a></div>Sing is a predictable, but cute, and fun little production that gave me more charm than I originally expected to be completely honest. That's not to say it's one I'll flock to see again, but from what I thought it would be in the trailers, it was enjoyable enough. Again, even if it is a you know like the back of your hand. It's full of clichés you've seen a thousand times, they lead to plot points you can see coming from miles away, that honestly feel like they're more tacked on than anything. But a likable cast, fun music, and charming jokes that even had me chuckling now and then help you look past a few of these things the duration of the film. <p></p>
<p dir="ltr">The film focuses on this guy (and I do mean guy, despite the fact that he's a koala bear but more on that later) named Moon, who owns a stage theater, and is facing rough times financially because he just can't seem to draw in the crowds, so he decides to put together a singing contest which he hopes will put him back in the business. However due to a typo, his grand prize draws in hundreds of singers hoping to get their hands on the advertised $100,000 dollars, and you can probably see where this will end up. Everything kinda revolves around this "Liar Revealed" plot that doesn't really have that big a payoff. In fact once it happens, it's almost kinda just glossed over. It's not a terrible story by any means, but I do feel that they don't really do much with it. In fact, by the end, I'm not sure I'm supposed to care because no one seems to learn anything. </p>
<p dir="ltr">What I mean by that is this film has a whole lot of characters. In fact as they introduce them all in the opening sequence, I couldn't help but wonder if I was in trouble with the sheer amount of characters, all facing common life problems, there were. You got a housewife pig who isn't fully appreciated at home, this street mouse that's a self centered egotistical jerk, this gorilla egos the son of a criminal mastermind who doesn't wanna be in his gang, this shut elephant who lives singing but isn't confident in herself, this porcupine ego isn't fully appreciated by her boyfriend, look it's all been done before, and they do nothing new with it. There is no twist, there is nothing you can't predict, it's all practically given away in the trailers for God's sake. By the time the big payoff happens, and each character's story comes to a close, I couldn't help but feel that there was nothing accomplished. The pig is suddenly appreciated because she sings and dances really good, the mouse is still a self centered, arrogant jackass...and he actually kinda comes out on top (nice message to teach the kids, be a huge jerk, be rude, be dishonest, and you'll still come out on top!), there really isn't a whole lot of closure in this film. The only sense of closure I felt was really there was Meena, as her story actually had a sense of buildup. But as she isn't exactly the focus of the movie, I found it rather underwhelming. Everyone else is just kinda there, and things just happen, because movie. Why does the pig's husband suddenly appreciate his wife more? Does the porcupine's boyfriend realize after seeing his girlfriend's talent how arrogant he'd been with her? Why did the gorilla's father have a sudden change of heart after simply seeing his son performing on a television from prison? These are just a few of the questions left unanswered. </p>
<p dir="ltr">I guess one thing I actually found I really enjoyed was the music of the film. The cast does a very nice job of singing some of the bigger hits of recent years, or even some of the classics from back in the day. Even if a lot of the music is stuff I don't normally care for. They do a good job singing things from Katy Perry to Frank Sinatra of all things. I also really enjoyed an original song from the film sung by the porcupine character, "Set it All Free", which she writes to help cope with the breakup with her boyfriend. And I will say that the way they animate her as she sings it in the movie is really good. There's a certain emotion to her face that is really convincing. </p>
<p dir="ltr">And I also like the films climax to an extent. In a way it actually reminded me of the ending of a movie I like, entitled "Be Kind, Rewind". The way it's setup, the way it's executed, it gives off a feeling similar to that movie. It doesn't end exactly like that movie by any means, but for what it was, I liked the similarity. Even if the payoff isn't as strong, and is seen from a mile away. Makes me almost wish that it did end similar to that movie. </p>
<p dir="ltr">But one thing I feel the need to say is that I just don't see the reason for this movie's existence. What I mean here is that when I first saw the trailer for it, and the trailers really didn't do a good job of advertising this I might add, I couldn't help but just see a movie that was trying to cash in on a craze started by "Zootopia". I loved Zootopia. It was my favorite film of 2016. But one of the reasons I loved it so much was because in this world of anthropomorphic animals that they created, they made the world feel alive. They had fun creating their characters, making them so similar in behavior and traits to their actual animal counterparts here in reality, that it raised my bar for what I expect in these movies that feature anthropomorphic animals. Sing just didn't do that for me. It didn't even come close to those expectations. They didn't have much of a reason to be anthropomorphic. The only time I can remember in which they actually kinda acknowledge they're animals, is in a few...bad puns. Like when Mike is singing "My Way" by Frank Sinatra, he replaces the word "man" with "mouse". The only real smart thing they did with any of these characters is that when the porcupine for excited or emotional, she could accidentally start shooting her quills out in random directions. That's it. They don't have fun with this concept. Unlike Zootopia, you could have easily taken all these characters out, and replaced them with humans, and you'd have the same story practically. </p>
<p dir="ltr">I'm giving Sing a two and a half star rating out of four. While it's not exactly terrible, and while I did have fun, some of my suspicions on this film were clarified upon watching it. I'm happy it gave me the fun it did, I'm happy I laughed when I laughed, even if a lot of the humor fell flat for me, and I'm happy I saw it. To be honest, it's probably more a film for the youngsters than it is for me, and I'm sure they will have plenty to enjoy in this film. But aside from some nice music numbers, and colorful animation, I would not exactly say this is one for the adults to look in too much on. </p>
<p dir="ltr">Please feel free to suggest any movie or film you'd like me to have a look at. Leave a comment down below expressing your own thoughts and opinions on the film, as they are most appreciated, and as always, thanks for reading. </p>
<p dir="ltr"><b>Final </b><b>Verdict: 2.5/</b><b>4</b></p>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10255843136139755590noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3347421577153149017.post-45633958215021575702017-01-05T17:36:00.001-08:002017-01-08T23:08:04.856-08:00THROWBACK REVIEW: Son of Kong (1933)<p dir="ltr"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjz473znHDd7lOQFMj-sM9ksQG2BVc1QMpPX7ii52IoXIdTYJuGuSO-DIx9-xrfSd-7OoP1ZLRXkmwQTFrB2lEJzQn5ZMCG8IWVJY0swIGnQJyftRuvqNckYCUj2TkC3bQRGqpJDLQWS0vj/s640/blogger-image--780219944.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjz473znHDd7lOQFMj-sM9ksQG2BVc1QMpPX7ii52IoXIdTYJuGuSO-DIx9-xrfSd-7OoP1ZLRXkmwQTFrB2lEJzQn5ZMCG8IWVJY0swIGnQJyftRuvqNckYCUj2TkC3bQRGqpJDLQWS0vj/s640/blogger-image--780219944.jpg"></a></div>With the release of King Kong in 1933, people went bananas over the films popularity. Critics were raving, people couldn't get enough of it, and the box office easily turned up a profit. And with such a reputation, the film of course just<i> </i><i>had</i> to get a sequel worked in there, right? Because if there was any movie that demanded a sequel, it was King Kong. (Sigh) You may already get the feeling that I'm not exactly the biggest fan of this film, mainly because it's a sequel to a film I straight up called the absolute best giant monster movie of all time. It had a satisfying beginning, middle, and end. Hell, that ending is probably one of the most iconic endings in film history! Why bother with a sequel? <p></p>
<p dir="ltr">I don't know why they did, but they did, and even they knew it would likely be a bad idea. The Script writer even admitted she didn't bother trying to make it as good as the first, based on the logic that they couldn't outdo the first film. Instead, writer Ruth Rose went for a more light-hearted film with a comedic approach. That's right everyone, King Kong's sequel is a comedy. Do you guys understand why I pretty much said the franchise behind King Kong sucks? It's stuff like this that makes me shower the King Kong movie with praise, and makes me bring the hammer down on the franchise as much as I do. Look, I'll admit that I don't exactly have a good idea on how to do a sequel to King Kong. Kong isn't a monster like Godzilla that just keeps coming back, Kong had a great movie, a phenomenal one at that, and in that movie, he dies at the end. If I was asked to come up with an idea for a sequel, I'd have a very hard time coming up with one to do that movie justice. So you know what I'd do? </p>
<p dir="ltr">I wouldn't do it. </p><p dir="ltr"><b>I WOULDN'T DO IT!!!</b></p>
<p dir="ltr">But they did it and so...here we are. What's the result? Well it's not really good, but it certainly could have been worse. A lot worse (we'll get there). But I will say there are some okay moments in this film. It's just that a good majority of this film is either dull, or completely underwhelming. One thing I need to point out is that unlike King Kong, Son of Kong is considerably shorter. Where King Kong was around 104 minutes long, Son of Kong is considerably shorter, at just over an hour in length. And the worst part is, we don't get to Skull Island until about halfway into the film. Fantastic. A film about the supposed son of Kong, and we don't get to Skull Island, the place where he lives, until we're pretty much halfway through the movie. Good move there, movie. Good move. </p>
<p dir="ltr">I'm being overly critical here, but despite everything, there is some stuff that I liked. One thing I can immediately point to is the opening scene of this movie, which takes place about a month after Kong's demise atop the Empire State Building, where we see Carl Denham, the movie director from the previous movie, and the captor of Kong, now broke, depressed, and very downhearted. New York City business owners are bringing him countless lawsuits for property damages brought on by Kong's rampage, the press is hounding him, and he's in this state of mind where he actually feels sorry not only for the loss of life Kong brought upon New York, but also sorry for the monster itself. It's almost like perhaps there really was a bit of a message in the previous film of how we treat nature so blindly. It's arguably the strongest scene in the movie. Too bad it happens right at the very beginning. </p>
<p dir="ltr">Carl is called upon by his skipper friend, also from the first movie, and they decide to leave New York to try and finds some shipping business and who should they come across, but the very sailor who sold Denham the map of Skull Island in the first place. He tells them of a treasure hidden in the island that may very much solve all the problems that Denham is facing, and it's off to Skull Island once more to try and find this mysterious treasure. But while there, they also bump into an ape-like creature, very much resembling Kong, only smaller and albino, who takes a bit of a liking to the human explorers. And from there it's nothing but an underwhelming treasure hunt that reminds me of "The Lost Continent", only fewer dinosaurs, and no rock climbing. </p>
<p dir="ltr">Immediately Skull Island feels lacking. The Natives are barely in this movie. In fact they only get two very brief scenes, one in which they turn Denham away, and the other where we see a small group of them getting killed as the island sinks into the sea (yeah that happens). Everything from the original movie that made Skull Island feel like this vast mysterious no man's land, is gone. There are VERY few dinosaurs here. And even though there are some, they're just not as impressive or used as much. People note that the stop-motion animation of this film isn't as extensive as that in Kong, probably because this film was as rushed as it was, and it shows. The only thing they seem to note is a very brief, and I do mean INCREDIBLY brief chase involving a Styracosaurus. It's the only real event in the movie that made me feel like there was any real threat in this island. Heck, the longest fight in this movie, is between Kong's son...and a cave bear. A CAVE BEAR. Oh we're gonna set this movie on an island where prehistoric monsters have survived all these millions of years, but let's pit Kong's offspring against a bear! That'll wow audiences!</p>
<p dir="ltr">I guess one thing worth noting is that Willis O'Brien wasn't as directly involved with this film as he was King Kong. He supposedly thought that the film was too cheesy, and though he left his models for the film, he left his two sons to do the actual animating. Unfortunetaly this was a rather depressing time period of his life, and a rather dark one, and it might have affected the films quality, because the special effects just aren't as used much here. Heck, the films climax, in which this huge earthquake tears the island apart making it sink into the ocean is rather underwhelming, and just not that fun to watch. You know...like "The Lost Continent". And I need to say that the supposed comedic effect that was supposed to be in this movie is very flat. Not once did I really laugh watching it. Because most of the comedy revolves around Kong's son, giving off these derpy looks, grunts, or other goofy emotions. The musical score actually plays off it as if to say, "okay, laugh now!" There's one part in the movie where out of nowhere, Kong's son just gives this very silly shrug as if to say some cheesy one liner line "Well, it's a living!" or "What'cha gonna do?" It's just all very flat, with no real purpose. </p>
<p dir="ltr">My final criticism of this movie unfortunetaly goes to the characters. While a few return from the first movie (Denham, the skipper, and the Chinese cook who's still a stereotype), the newer characters in Helmstrom, and the girl that I can't remember the name for (because they only reveal her name in the opening credits and not once do they say it in the actual movie), are flat to me. Heck, the girl's acting in this is absolutely terrible. Half the time, she looks half asleep, and rarely conveys any hints of emotion. Like when she confronts Helmstrom, who killed her father, she just speaks in this dull monotone that isn't convincing in the slightest bit. It's actually very funny how little she seems to care. I like how developed Denham's character is in this movie (to the point where I can understand why his actor preferred this movie to King Kong), he's arguably the films greatest strength, but it's literally all it has, and as a followup to the greatest monster movie of all time? You can bet that your movie will be beyond disappointing. </p>
<p dir="ltr">I'm giving Son of Kong a two star rating out of four. I almost gave it a one and a half star rating, but I think it barely earns the two star rating. Barely. That's not saying much. This sequel is harmless...but it's below average. It really is. It's dull, wooden, flat, and just not as exciting as its predecessor. Not by a long shot. If you were a fan of Kong, and your curiosity got the better of you, and you wanted to watch this, there's nothing so condemning in this picture that would make me say, "Don't do it, it's not worth it!", but there's nothing that would make me really say, "yeah, go watch it" either. It's just a bland forgettable sequel that was doomed from the very start. Nothing more, nothing less. </p>
<p dir="ltr">Please feel free to suggest films you'd like to see me take a look at. Leave a comment down below expressing your own thoughts and opinions on the film, as they are much appreciated, and as always, thanks for reading. </p>
<p dir="ltr">Next week, we take a look at Japan's very first attempt at filming King Kong, in one of the most famous monster movies ever created. Does it have any meat? See you next week when I review the infamous, "King Kong VS Godzilla".</p>
<p dir="ltr"><b>Final </b><b>Verdict: 2/4</b></p>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10255843136139755590noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3347421577153149017.post-81484344577007172312017-01-01T19:42:00.001-08:002017-01-02T07:00:48.924-08:00CLASSIC REVIEW: King Kong (1933)<p dir="ltr"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjA4MVsCHnECebCOgtdWpjfBv3eZek5B8q_mk6cMZy6Zh-Ha8zG2KEfd8v88hD6hqS4YlD-wS7WvzAmaDP5efXAhLJAT1sJbgkY5oZBPMe09aEJVs5vROxGUUoEuIT7AY_z1wuDtXh-OcTz/s640/blogger-image--689966587.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjA4MVsCHnECebCOgtdWpjfBv3eZek5B8q_mk6cMZy6Zh-Ha8zG2KEfd8v88hD6hqS4YlD-wS7WvzAmaDP5efXAhLJAT1sJbgkY5oZBPMe09aEJVs5vROxGUUoEuIT7AY_z1wuDtXh-OcTz/s640/blogger-image--689966587.jpg"></a></div>Happy 2017 everyone. If you don't already know (and if you don't, where have you been?), I'm a huge fan of giant monsters, and in a few short months, one of the most iconic monsters that has ever graced the screen with his presence, will make his return to the big screen. I'm of course talking about Kong. And though part of me is nervous, I cannot deny my excitement at seeing him once more on the big screen. And so to help with the excitement, until this new film is released, I'm going to be reviewing something Kong related each and every week. From beginning to end. And we of course start from the very beginning with an absolutely legendary film. The film by Merian C. Cooper, and Ernest B. Schoedsack, King Kong. <p></p>
<p dir="ltr">This is a very rare type of review I will do, because there are a few movies out there with such a legacy, such acclaim, that I really shouldn't<i> </i><i>need</i> to review them. But now and then, I may just wanna add my two cents. But because these films have well earned their legacy and their iconic status, I won't dare rate them. Frankly, I shouldn't need to. I think my words should be enough. Besides...if you call yourself a giant monster movie fan, and you've not seen this 1933 masterpiece, I have only three words for you; "Shame on you." </p>
<p dir="ltr">Before I go on with my review, I may as well talk a bit about my history with Kong. Believe it or not, he was the first giant monster I ever saw on the screen, aside from Sharp Tooth of The Land Before Time or some other kid dinosaur movie. King Kong was the stepping stone for me in my love of giant monsters. Without Kong, I likely wouldn't have gotten into the Godzilla franchise. And I don't think I'd have it any other way. </p>
<p dir="ltr">So with all this said, what are my thoughts on the 1933 classic? Why bother asking? </p>
<p dir="ltr">Despite being over 80 years old, it's a film that has long surpassed the tests of time. The one thing I find myself saddened by nowadays is that the people I'm friends with don't always have a taste for the classics. Not everyone today can watch an 80 year old black and white film, and enjoy themselves. In a world where filmmaking is dominated by large budgets, CGI, celebrity power, and all these other things we've found out how to show on the big screen, not many really care about the old ways anymore, and it's a damn shame. Simply watching clips on YouTube of this movie, I shake my head at the comments of countless people who bash this film for the logic of its time, or how people behave in the film. It's absolutely heartbreaking to see this legendary film mocked by people who really have no idea what they're mocking. </p>
<p dir="ltr">Me? Here's my stance. Despite the film's dated effects, dated and inaccurate science, blatant and at times laughable racial stereotypes, there is a magic in King Kong that still works. This is truly one of those films that proves it doesn't need to be flashy to keep your attention. There is a wonderful sense of adventure, intimidation, mystery, and thrill in this movie that remains strong all these years later. I'm sure we all know the story by now, in which a large oversized ape-like monster takes a fascination with a beautiful woman, and how his fascination with her eventually leads to his downfall. It's a classic telling of a beauty and the beast type of storytelling that had critics raving back in the day. Watching this in 2017, I cannot help but chuckle at some of the films dialogue. Despite being some of the cheesiest flub you'll ever hear in a movie (by today's standards), there is a hidden charm within almost every line. Whether it's Denham exclaiming how soon they'll proudly show Kong off on Broadway, or Driscoll brooding over how women make him uncomfortable and just get in his way. A favorite line of mine actually comes from the very beginning of the movie when Carl Denham straight up says "I'll find a woman for my picture, even if I have to marry one!" It's the golden age charm of this dialogue that makes you look past any cheese it has. </p>
<p dir="ltr">If you can't already tell, I love the characters of this movie. A few of them made my list of the best giant monster movie human characters a while back. The movie director Carl Denham, the first mate Jack Driscoll, and of course, the beautiful scream queen, Ann Darrow (and that's not much of a joke either, her screams in this picture do get very distracting). All are portrayed wonderfully by their respective actors and actresses, even if by today's standards, this acting is rather wooden by comparison. I will say that I don't often see a lot of development between Driscoll and Darrow to make me honestly believe they'd become a couple in this movie, but the banter between them both is still very enjoyable. Now one thing I should probably address is the racial stereotypes in this film. They're present and easily spotted. Like the Chinese cook, who literally talks like a stereotype ("Me no like crazy brown people."). And of course you have a few white actors playing black-faced natives on Skull Island. It's all behavior that's practically condemned by society by this point. Honestly I just remember when this was made. It wasn't right then, it isn't right now, but why raise hell over it? I'm not gonna censor it, it doesn't need to be fixed, it's just a reminder of the times, and honestly...it never really bothered me. And I'll admit...I get a chuckle watching the chef trying to volunteer to help find Darrow while wielding a butcher knife. Like I find it hilarious that we'd think someone would behave like that. Rifles being distributed, and this guy volunteers with a butcher knife. Should I feel bad about that? I don't know. I'm just gonna move on. </p>
<p dir="ltr">Watching this movie again, I couldn't help but really take note at how great the music score was. Seriously, it's been in my head all night. Max Steiner, one of Hollywood's key iconic composers back in the day, was originally told to recycle music he'd done in past films. Cooper wouldn't have any of that, and paid him $50,000 dollars of his own money to compose something new, and the result is absolutely incredible. Really amongst the best scores out there, and for its time, absolutely groundbreaking. I particularly love the piece that plays when Ann is being prepared by the Natives to sacrifice her to Kong. The score does a great job setting the mood, and having fun with whatever is going on onscreen. </p>
<p dir="ltr">But easily the best thing about this movie is its special effects. I shouldn't need to explain why. One look at this stop-motion animation, and you can tell you're watching something absolutely incredible. The mastermind behind it all, Willis O'Brien, really did up his game for this picture. He'd already impressed with his stop-motion animation before in the 1925 silent film, "The Lost World", but compared to this, it really was nothing more than a warm up project. While he'd go on with other projects where his animation would only improve (such as "The Black Scorpion" which is a mediocre movie with amazing animation), this really is his crowning achievement. From the monster, to the dinosaur models, to the occasional human models which can get attacked, picked up, watching them try and flee or pound against their attacker, everything feels alive, and to have a film convey that kind of feeling over 80 years later, is nothing short of phenomenal. </p>
<p dir="ltr">The main setting of this movie, Skull Island remains one of my absolute favorite film places I've ever seen, and one of the places I'd never ever ever wanna set foot on. The film really does show how menacing a place it is. Skull Island I'm sad to say isn't shown in its entirety in this movie, as there was a lot of very famous footage, cut from this film. I'm sure many of you have heard about the infamous Spider Pit scene. For those who may need a visual reference, it makes an appearance in the Peter Jackson remake (but we'll get there when we get there), well this sequence was supposed to be in the movie, but was cut in the end. Even without it, Skull Island does give off the idea that this really is no man's land. An island where literally everything is out to get you. Even the plant eaters of this film. There's an awesome scene in which a Brontosaurus (or Apatosaurus for those who prefer the modern term) actually mauls a sailor, and it's wicked awesome. You can tell there is some very dated science in this movie from the dinosaur behavior, but it's still such a treat to watch. </p>
<p dir="ltr">I've really gone on in this review haven't I?Regardless of a few nitpicks, King Kong is as strong today as it was back in 1933. The legacy of this film is unmatched by any giant monster movie today. To see this film influence such a genre in the way it has is nothing short of incredible. And this is why I say, that despite having believed otherwise before, I'm fully convinced that this legendary film is without a doubt, the absolute best giant monster movie of all time. Surpassing some of my absolute favorite films, such as "Them!" or even the ever so iconic "Gojira". While Godzilla does remain my favorite movie monster out there, I'd be lying to say that his debut film surpasses King Kong. It's just not true. </p>
<p dir="ltr">Why? Why do I say this, when Godzilla has potentially further influenced the Kaiju genre as we know it? Why do I say this, when it's initial message criticizing the use of nuclear weapons has been so hard hitting to this day? Well I'll tell you why. </p>
<p dir="ltr">My father pointed something out to me about this movie that I never really noticed before. Something he told me actually saddens him to the point of never really wanting to see this movie again. This film portrays mankind's uncaring attitude toward how it can treat nature. Seeing Kong in chains as "a show to gratify your curiosity", or seeing him gunned down at the very end, is actually pretty damn haunting today. And...God I hate to bring it up, but in many ways, it's a behavior that's still there. Remember Harambe? No jokes from me, I think the Internet outrage over it went a little too far, but I think my point is made just saying his name (and it'll be the only time I'll say this name). Aside from that, you know there's continued issues from poaching to deforestation, and this film does kinda serve as a grim reminder that it's still very much an issue. Was it this film's intent to portray such a message? Probably not. This was made when such concerns weren't even thought about most likely. But the message can most definitely be seen, and should be respected. It is a message that is still very much a relevant thing. I'm not downplaying that the messages of Godzilla aren't important, but the threats of WWIII aren't really on the horizon anymore as they were 60 years ago. So as much as I support that message, it just doesn't have much of an impact if you ask me nowadays. The fact that this message can come from a movie that didn't even aim to portray that kind of message really does showcase the kind of film we're talking about. </p>
<p dir="ltr">But if that's not enough, all you need to do is look at this film compared to that of Godzilla and see the influence for yourself. When the producers of Godzilla first saw this film, they wanted to do what Willis did. Shoot Godzilla in stop-motion animation. And there are times in that film that it does come into play. But they didn't have the time for such a time consuming process. I also feel that the story is just overall more classic in Kong. It's just hard to beat, especially when it comes to the films climax. You cannot compare Godzilla's climax to that of Kong, it doesn't even come close. While I understand it's meant to be a more somber climax, it's very underwhelming to me. They very much just kinda...kill Godzilla. And that's it. Yeah there's more to it, but compare Godzilla's underwater death scene to King Kong climbing the then very new Empire State Building, holding Ann in his hands, before making his final stand at the very top, fighting off biplane fighters, and of course, we get that one very classic line of dialogue from Carl Denham; "T'was beauty that killed the beast." It's exciting, tense, and even again...a bit heartbreaking. And coming from a film that was meant mainly to be a fun horror film, there is really just no equal. I can no longer deny this film its proper title of the absolute best of the best when it comes to giant monster movies. </p>
<p dir="ltr">And so once more...to all those giant monster movie fans out there who have yet to see this film, and I know there are indeed a few of you, this is a must see. Even if you don't take away the things I take away from it, even if you disagree with my claim of it being the absolute best, you cannot deny that this is something you need to see at least once. An essential for your collection, and just an all around classic. This is ranked number 41 on the AFI's list of the greatest films ever made for God's sake. What more do I need to say? Go watch it. Go watch it now. </p>
<p dir="ltr">Thanks for joining me on the first entry of my Kong-a-thon. Now don't worry, there are a few films I'll probably go see while doing this, so I don't over-Kong you, but I think this will be...somewhat fun. And I do put emphasis on the somewhat, because there's plenty of crap in this franchise that I'm not looking forward to watching, but...hey. Kong's returning to the big screen. See you next week when I review the...unneeded sequel to this film, "Son of Kong", and as always, thanks for reading. </p>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10255843136139755590noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3347421577153149017.post-30889803503579806052016-12-26T21:16:00.001-08:002016-12-27T07:58:21.196-08:00THROWBACK REVIEW: Gamera 3: The Revenge of Iris (1999)<p dir="ltr"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiM-KGIZgclDjn8HIAwmflm-sFPou9gIKuabwhe-1ky83ZHbgUO3UbbdeskSoVL2e5mFitbsnkNiPJf6vuHxplvIwScXKr-kJkrzyCT30rHIJTGbyD4rl9aoQPEIRD3MavAoVG2EoKiUbyA/s640/blogger-image-1293735566.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiM-KGIZgclDjn8HIAwmflm-sFPou9gIKuabwhe-1ky83ZHbgUO3UbbdeskSoVL2e5mFitbsnkNiPJf6vuHxplvIwScXKr-kJkrzyCT30rHIJTGbyD4rl9aoQPEIRD3MavAoVG2EoKiUbyA/s640/blogger-image-1293735566.jpg"></a></div>Gamera 3 is everything you could want from a Gamera movie and much much more. I'm once again forced to hammer home the point, that it's movies like this that make me incredibly harsh towards things like Godzilla. The fact that an underbudgeted film coming from a franchise that's often mocked for being a knockoff, can pull off so much more than any Godzilla film has from any era, is a real testament to Gamera and these films he put out in the late 90's. You heard that right. This film is superior to almost every single Godzilla film out there. It tops Destoroyah, it tops Giant Monsters All Out Attack, it tops Tokyo S.O.S., really the only film I can't see it topping is the original 1954 film, and I'll go ahead and say I do enjoy the 2014 Godzilla a bit more, but I don't like comparing Japanese and American filmmaking...too much. With all this said, is Revenge of Iris perfect? No. It's got flaws, but it did take some notes from the shortcomings of Legion, and did improve the story. <p></p>
<p dir="ltr">Iris gives us a much darker tone of any Gamera movie. Before this film, Gamera had always been looked at as this hero of a monster. During the Showa, he and Godzilla shared many common traits in these films, but during the Heisei era, Godzilla turned more back into that enemy he's commonly known as. Gamera wasn't exactly a hero persay in the Heisei era, but he was no enemy of humanity. He fought and defended them, but humanity still had contingencies for Gamera. Well, here they nearly completely drop the hero side of Gamera, and the result is easily the darkest Gamera film you'll ever watch to date. Here, Gamera is responsible for a lot of destruction, and death, and it results in a child growing up with a huge grudge against the Guardian, and bonding with a monster that nearly kills him. This take on Gamera is so unique, so unthinkable, a child hating Gamera, that it's just...wonderful to watch.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Now it should be said that the story isn't perfect, but again, it does improve on the last film. One thing I found disappointing was that despite Gyaos having a bit of a roll in this film, there's not too much action involving Gyaos here. Which is a damn shame because Gyaos looks absolutely...wonderful in this film. The effects crew need to be credited with this film, because the effects aren't as dated as previous Gamera films, and they look just...wonderful. more on this shortly though. They manage to have some fun with the story, and their characters. Almost to the point of it being ridiculously silly. I had a small laugh at the family who apparently guards this tomb which houses the monster Iris. The thing is they barely do anything in the movie, and the only one that does contribute to the plot, in the form of a decent love interest, is always getting thrown around. I'm surprised he lived in this movie honestly. Yeah the family of Guardians does a pretty lousy job in this film, but they're still likable. We also get the returning characters like Asagi in this movie, and they do have a better role than in the pervious film. They help flesh Gamera out more in this film, and explain a bit more about how things are with him better than in the previous films. </p><p dir="ltr">Are there forgettable characters? Oh absolutely. There are some characters in this movie that I found entertainingly bad. Like this one weirdo who keeps on claiming that the end of humanity is near and whatnot. He always has this weird smile glued to his face, like someone in the Purge movies might have. And he has the most laughable last words ever. The ceiling of a train station is coming down on him, and his last words are along the lines of "Oh my! This is indeed very scary!" I had a good laugh at that. There's also this girl who...honestly I can't even remember, but she dies after trting to pray all the evil away or something, and crazy guy just kinda laughs as she dies. You also got the family of the girl who hates Gamera...who dies, except for her kid brother, who's barely in the movie anyway, and so on and so forth. The characters are strong, but not all of them are exactly memorable or serve purpose to the overall story.</p><p dir="ltr">But my God, you just don't care when you see the monsters on screen. The action in this movie is absolutely phenomenal. EASILY the best I've seen from any Japanese monster film. It's quick, it's destructive, it's intense, even intimidating. It's kinda scary to see Gamera bring so much death upon humans. One might think it something that doesn't work, but I believe it strangely only strengthens this story out. Whenever Gamera is on screen, which ironically isn't much in this movie now that I think about it, you're going to have a lot of fun watching. But even when he's not, when we're getting introduced to Iris, or whatnot, there's something in this movie that holds everything together with little effort. Now I will day that I still kinda think Legion is the better monster compared to Iris, but Iris is still one of those really fun monsters that Godzilla just can't seem to create nowadays. Intimidating, cool origins, powerful, and unique. It just continues to up the ante against Godzilla. And needless to say, the fight Gamera has with Iris is absolutely stellar. Again, no monster fight in Japan has ever looked so damn good. </p><p dir="ltr">If you're reading these, and are a fan of Godzilla, a lot of you may not have liked my stance on these films. Me claiming how a vast majority of them are so damn superior to Godzilla films. And this is coming from a guy who grew up with Godzilla, and still loves the big guy. Well I hope I've at least made you think a bit about why I'm so harsh towards a lot of Godzilla films now. With Gamera pulling what it did, there's no reason Godzilla films should be so...I hate saying this, but...half-assed as a lot of them are. There are way too many sequels in that franchise that completely disregard the film they're following. There are way too many plot devices, and "because movie" moments in those films. There are way too many absolutely forgettable characters, and story arcs that go nowhere. And again, there's no excuse for it. None. Not when you have a trilogy like this come and just do so much right, give a solid and satisfying beginning, middle, and end, and rise up on top when it didn't have nearly as much success or resources as Godzilla did. If you think there is an excuse, I'll be waiting to hear one. But so far, most Godzilla fans I've talked with on this matter are pretty damn stumped. I hope Toho will one day take some serious notes from this trilogy. Godzilla could be so much more than what it is right now, and while I'm thankful we did get a boost in quality in the early millennium, it still doesn't really match this trilogy. And after Godzilla Resurgence...well you all know how I feel about that film. </p><p dir="ltr">So with that rant out of the way, what do I think of this third Gamera film? </p><p dir="ltr">I wanted to give this film the fullest rating I could. I really did. But there are those minor annoyances that do hold it back just barely. Still, I'm giving Gamera 3: The Revenge of Iris a solid three and a half star rating out of four. It is my favorite of the Gamera films, it outdoes it's predecessors at almost every turn, it ties in nicely to the previous two films of this trilogy, and concludes it wonderfully. In fact, the ending of this movie is easily one of the coolest endings of any monster movie you'll ever see. I won't dare spoil it. It's one you need to see for yourself. And it only makes me that much sadder that this is pretty much the only thing Gamera has been up to lately. While we had a new Gamera movie in the early millennium with Gamera the Brave, I've yet to see it, and have heard it does fall short of the Heisei trilogy, and there's not been much since then. And I'm a bit sad that with the fiftieth anniversary of Gamera having come and gone, not a lot was done to celebrate the Guardian of the Universe. We got a short film that many confused as a film trailer, including new, which looked incredible, but that's about it. With Godzilla now on the big screen again, I for one hope the Guardian makes his return again. He is gaining my respect more and more, and if Godzilla continues on the path he's treading...Gamera may just take his place on my list of favorite monsters out there. Time will tell. </p><p dir="ltr">But that's my views on the Gamera Heisei trilogy. And with this being the last Kaiju review of the 2016 year...it's time to get myself mentally prepared for the Kong-a-thon...I hope you'll join me then as I get us ready for Kong: Skull Island. Until that time, please feel free to voice your own thoughts on your own views of this movie, leave a comment requesting a film you'd like to see me look at, and as always, thanks for reading. </p><p dir="ltr"><b>Final Verdict: 3.5/4</b></p>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10255843136139755590noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3347421577153149017.post-78885839185464692862016-12-20T22:06:00.001-08:002016-12-21T05:48:39.323-08:00REVIEW: Rogue One: A Star Wars Story<p dir="ltr"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj-WgDsyMbMs4j4-rArsQMYXWoo5_Jr9cWHBiNrhh2KQbM7kkBKxVpPi3eMcrMQJyJbE6doCJkeetUXtQ5OG6rGY5ASKhW6fK8R74tsS_JVxRXTXi-wnPRRtO9XuLxu7UGmktp7vHQuq1ct/s640/blogger-image--568175180.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj-WgDsyMbMs4j4-rArsQMYXWoo5_Jr9cWHBiNrhh2KQbM7kkBKxVpPi3eMcrMQJyJbE6doCJkeetUXtQ5OG6rGY5ASKhW6fK8R74tsS_JVxRXTXi-wnPRRtO9XuLxu7UGmktp7vHQuq1ct/s640/blogger-image--568175180.jpg"></a></div>I'm so bummed that Gareth Edwards left Godzilla. Like so much. I really like his direction and ideas of how to shoot a film. So...yeah, I was really pleased to see his concepts and ideas put to work in Rogue One. There are times where his ideas of shooting the action from a human perspective are absolutely gorgeous in this film, especially in that final act, but I can't help but feel that there's just a little something missing in the opening act of this film. But I will say that compared to last years Star Wars project, I do believe that Disney is getting better in their Star Wars ambitions. While I thoroughly enjoyed last years film, I can't help but feel in my excitement of seeing it, that certain things escaped my critique. There were a lot of unanswered questions. If I we're to rate that film again right now, I'd probably score it a 3, as compared to my original 3.5 rating out of four. However, with Rogue One, Star Wars remains in somewhat safer territory, telling a story in the universe we already know. That's what this is, a Star Wars Story. A story about the first major victory that's talked about in the opening scroll of the very first Star Wars film we ever saw. And it's as enjoyable as ever.<p></p>
<p dir="ltr">But despite this, I cannot help but feel there is something missing from this film. Particularly in the first half. I couldn't make connections to many characters, I didn't really care about any of the conflicts being presented, and I just couldn't get invested in a lot of what was going on. They try to blur the lines as they so often try to do with this universe with the line of good and evil, and honestly...that's just not really possible in this universe. Star Wars has the most obvious villains, and the most obvious heroes. So when I see the films primary antagonist at the beginning of this film tackling about the extreme that will ensure peace, you have no reason to side with him...because you know what they're talking about. In fact, I don't think I'm spoiling anything by saying that from the very beginning, you'll know how the film will end. So I am kinda left with this underwhelming feeling that can come from the prequel films, knowing how things will end. But unlike the prequel films, this film actually tries to have a decent plot without so many obvious plot holes, and that's the strength of this film for me. </p>
<p dir="ltr">Right off the bat, I was a bit surprised actually at the lack the the traditional opening scroll. This film instead just kinda gets the ball rolling, and I didn't mind that too much. The visuals are all wonderfully done, all to a musical score that might as well have come from John Williams himself. I'm telling you all, Michael Giacchino is your go to guy right now. I wish he would have taken a few more risks with the score to give it his own personal touch and whatnot, but he does the music proud in this film, and they could not have had a better substitute. Yes right off the bat, the film does its job of looking and sounding like a Star Wars movie, but whether a different writing team may have been needed or not, the film takes its time in getting the ball rolling. </p>
<p dir="ltr">The characters are characters that I really really REALLY want to like. In ways they remind me a bit of the Guardians of the Galaxy, but they're not that interesting, they're not really fleshed out as other characters in this universe are when we first see them, and I just couldn't make the connections I wanted to make. The Force Awakens on the other hand did an incredible job of introducing us to new characters. Despite knowing so little about her, we have made so many connections to Rey, and there are God knows how many theories regarding just who she is. And Finn is fleshed or wonderfully in that movie, and it easily makes one of my favorite characters in this entire franchise. I don't get any of that here. And I'm sad to say that this was one of the same problems that the Gareth film Godzilla (2014) faced. While I like that movie a lot, our main protagonist in Ford Brody really just wasn't as interesting as his father Joe, who's killed 30 minutes in. I want to lime these characters, I think they're all really unique, really fun characters that with proper development, really would have made me enjoy this film so much more. The blind force worshiper, and his gunner Guardian, the reprogrammed imperial Droid (which my friend actually made a character like in this tabletop game we play), the imperial pilot, they're all TONS more interesting than our leading roles in Jyn and Cassian! I want to learn more about THEM!</p>
<p dir="ltr">We also get our fair share of cameos from the original film itself, my favorite being Grand Moff Tarkin. Thought I was gonna say Vader, didn't you? Don't lie. Tarkin to me was the one antagonist I always wanted to see more of. I hated that he was killed off so soon. So seeing him play a decently central role in this film was a huge treat to me, but I gotta address the elephant in the room here, because the CGI they use on his face stands out...so damn much. I didn't want to focus so much on this, but there were times I thought his cheek had a mind of its own. His face just doesn't look that convincing. I loved his role, but they probably should have gone the makeup route. And yes, without spoiling anything, you'll get your taste of Vader, and the taste is good. Though I'll say certain cameos were completely unnecessary, I also loved the minor cameo appearances of the Red and Gold leaders of the first film. And let me tell you, THEY looked really convincing.</p>
<p dir="ltr">And speaking of Red and Gold leader, it's time to talk about the action, and it's this film that will slightly raise the bar for future Star Wars films. Gareth is absolutely phenomenal in directing action. He tends to shoot it at ground level as a person would see it happen a lot of the time, and it's absolutely phenomenal. The ground combat is some of the most enjoyable combat the franchise knows. I daresay it rivals the Battle of Hoth. The first time I saw those massive AT-AT walkers appearing in the smoke of battle, I got chills. And finally seeing some Space Combat in these new films, a trait absent in The Force Awakens, it really does show off just what the future can hold for this franchise under Disney. It's absolutely incredible to watch the first major victory of the Rebel Alliance unfolding before your eyes. It's full of tension, suspense, and a lot of the time, you really don't know what exactly is going to happen.</p>
<p dir="ltr">So while flawed, I'm giving Rogue One: A Star Wars Story a three star rating out of four. It intrigued me once things began to get rolling. Does Gareth need to improve his lead roles? Yes he does. Let this film be a fair warning to him on that. I think he's a great director, but there is room for improvement. But what he gets right in this film, he does with flying colors. This film does a great job of adding just a bit more life into this beloved franchise, and yes....I may as well say it, it is my favorite prequel. I'm funny. </p>
<p dir="ltr">Please feel free to request any movie you'd like to see me tackle. Leave a comment down below expressing your own thoughts on the film, and as always, thanks for reading. </p>
<p dir="ltr"><b>Final </b><b>Verdict: 3/4</b></p>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10255843136139755590noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3347421577153149017.post-12364648756005416622016-12-19T17:00:00.001-08:002016-12-20T13:30:51.396-08:00THROWBACK REVIEW: Gamera 2: Attack of Legion (1996)<p dir="ltr"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhLWkcGiDunKEBjmEVDBUcw6zmaSF5atl8MxFPP6hdddwotsvICXXewaSD8sxdYRVms4pD8dY0iBtPLogH4HvoBHDR4ifx1b0DUHC0ysY4WtdXuB7AxtoU-XQvJzP8SzSOPqYDo1DolI_rV/s640/blogger-image--1521581519.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhLWkcGiDunKEBjmEVDBUcw6zmaSF5atl8MxFPP6hdddwotsvICXXewaSD8sxdYRVms4pD8dY0iBtPLogH4HvoBHDR4ifx1b0DUHC0ysY4WtdXuB7AxtoU-XQvJzP8SzSOPqYDo1DolI_rV/s640/blogger-image--1521581519.jpg"></a></div>Gamera 2 continues the excellence I've come to expect from these films in more ways than one, but I will say that this film isn't as good as its predecessor. Despite some really awesome action, some really cool concepts, and one really really REALLY badass Kaiju, it does suffer a few problems that nagged at me, both in the film kaif, and technicals. But don't let that fool you into thinking I don't like this film, because nothing could be so very untrue. It does need to be said that much like its predecessor, this film does outshine a vast majority of the Godzilla films that came out during the Heisei era. <p></p>
<p dir="ltr">So what are my problems with the film then? If it's still impressing me in ways Godzilla failed to do, what is wrong with the film. The biggest issue that I can really say that nagged at me the most was the lack of a connection to mossy of the human characters here. Of the trilogy of Gamera during Heisei, I do remember this being the one film I just couldn't connect fully with. Granted, watching it just now, in my condition where I was a bit tired, and facing a little holiday exhaustion, I can't exactly say I was on the right mindset to watch this. If I were to watch it again, more relaxed and awake, I might be able to connect more. But despite everything, I just didn't feel much of a connection to our human characters of this film, so when they did things on screen, I didn't find myself caring too much for what they did, and whatnot. I'm thankful they didn't become Godzilla type of characters, characters so weak they may as well be cutouts in a film of the 40's, but they were missing something. I enjoyed watching the commanding officer in the army as he debated firing against Gamera, or supporting him, but not much else really stood out to me. Even the returning character from the previous film, Asagi, didn't really have much of a role in this film. And pardon the minor spoiler here, but by the end of this film, she loses her spiritual connection to Gamera. But...didn't that happen last film? Am I missing something here?</p>
<p dir="ltr">And I gotta express my frustration at the subtitles of this movie. The DVD I own just....can't stop messing up. I'm sure the translations themselves are fine, but...why are they so delayed? I mean that too. Credit where credit is due, they did a better job translating out newspaper headlines and locations thankfully, but it's like the subtypes had to load or think about what was being said before displaying it. If I'm being unclear, I'll try my best to explain what I mean. One character is talking to another character, and he says a generic line like... "Gamera is on his way to Tokyo. Shall we intervene?" However he only says this in Japanese, and I get no translation for a second or two. Then character two starts talking, and gives a generic line, "Yes. Deploy all defensive units around Tokyo at once! We cannot take chances!" But by the time he saying this, the subtitles are translating out what the other character just said. This at times can get so annoying, so frustrating, and so confusing, that I had to finish the movie at home, because my Blu-ray of this film doesn't do such a God awful job of translating. Maybe it's just the company that did the dvd or collection or whatnot, but these subtitles are awful. Someone's they barely stayed on the screen for a second! They're subtitles! How hard can it be to get these things right???</p>
<p dir="ltr">Okay now that I got that out of my system, what is actually good about this movie? Well pretty much everything. I will say the story suffers a bit due to the weaker characters, but the concepts, the monsters, the action is all absolutely wonderful to behold. I don't wanna say this, but if Toho or any other film company in Japan wanted to remake the classic 1954 monster movie, Them!, this is a really good film to watch. There were a lot of times this film seemed to draw from that old film, and I love that. Them! I feel at times doesn't get enough credit for what it did to influence giant monster films. It's easily one of the best creature features I know. </p>
<p dir="ltr">The story centers on these mysterious alien life forms that fall to earth in a freak meteor shower. When it's discovered that these alien life forms invade planets by launching themselves into space, by means of building up oxygen in the atmosphere, the nation must rely on Gamera, as there's just so much oxygen around these plants that any attack from the military would be risky. While this is one of the more far fetched plots of Gamera, I do like how they flesh out this race of Monsters. No other Kaiju movie I know has put so much effort into gotta these things live, how they act, or whatnot. Even how they move! Not even Godzilla 2014 has done that, and they actually made an effort to flesh out their monsters and their origins. Most of the time Godzilla films hand-wave it away. STOP IT, TOHO! Make me interested in these many monsters you shove in my face!</p>
<p dir="ltr">Speaking of the monsters, holy shit Legion is amazing. You can say what you want about the quality of Gamera films compared to Godzilla films (unless it's Heisei, because Gamera is superior there, period), but the Gamera films do know how to make some intimidating, unique, and really cool Kaiju. I thoroughly believe Gyaos is more intimidating than Rodan. I thoroughly believe that Knifehead from Pacific Rim was influenced by Guiron. And despite being in a shamefully horrible movie, Zigra is a really cool idea, and design that needs to be used again (minus the musical back because that was stupid). And Legion continues this awesome tradition of the very fun Kaiju that get so little attention. Why do we not have more swarm-like Kaiju? This is why I love Them! so much, the tight of hundreds of thousands of giant ants the size of cars is scary! Those things can lift 50 times their own body weight! How is that NOT intimidating? If the swarm factor isn't enough, just LOOK at Legion! Most of these monsters I can tell someone is just in some rubber suits. Legion? Not so much. All those limbs, the structure of the body it looks fantastic! And his abilities might even give GODZILLA a run for his money! Legion really is one of the coolest monsters I've seen in any Kaiju film, and he really does steal the show here. </p>
<p dir="ltr">Which brings me to the action, which is very similar to that seen in Godzilla VS Destoroyah. There's plenty of monster brawling, but there's also a lot of action involving humans, and it can get really gruesome. The opening scenes of this movie can be incredibly bloody. The fact that it's this series, originally a children's series, that continues to be the bloody mess of Kaiju films is something that continues to confuse me, but does show just how far this franchise has come. Even when it gets a little over the top, there's nothing that made me think of it being too stupid or whatnot. It's one big treat to my inner monster fan. </p>
<p dir="ltr">When all is said and done, I do enjoy this film in more ways than one, despite a few steps taken back from the previous film. But despite everything, it still stands in a league of its own compared to most of the other Godzilla films. I'm not joking when I say that Toho needs to start taking some serious notes for their future Godzilla movies. I'm sure they got most of Japan eating right out of their hands with their films right now, but me? I'll continue to ask for more from them, especially when severally inferior budgeted films like this one will leave Godzilla films in the dust. </p>
<p dir="ltr">Gamera 2: Attack of Legion earns a three star rating out of four. Despite the faults it has, it does still manage to be of enjoyable quality. Though I do understand why there might have been some debate in 1996 when this would go on to win the Nihon SF Taisho Award (the Japanese Nebula Award). It's got some really good material, but I'm sure that if I looked hard enough, there might have been a more deserving science fiction piece to get that award. But the fact that Gamera is getting awards at all in this point is a real statement to the quality of these films. If this doesn't convince some fans out there that these films are actually worth looking into, I don't know what will convince you. </p>
<p dir="ltr">Feel free to request any film you'd like me to have a look at. Leave a comment down below on your own thoughts of the film, and as always, thanks for reading. </p>
<p dir="ltr"><b>Final </b><b>Verdict: 3/4</b><br>
</p>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10255843136139755590noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3347421577153149017.post-27903154012025117392016-12-12T12:06:00.001-08:002016-12-13T12:46:00.347-08:00THROWBACK REVIEW: Gamera: Guardian of the Universe (1995)<p dir="ltr"><i></i></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><i><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjNB4TR-VLnWSuFgxEcm35uXq-bWRIu1ZZYSSLQOyCdojBnS7GyGYPZQH413Bidvnzr6mTwz1aoarx19OaCDlY9h2D904sdou6VDvR8rCC8PbmkZqIDQuipku5cRYuUe3B1IaLn8_LCtbS1/s640/blogger-image-287552985.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjNB4TR-VLnWSuFgxEcm35uXq-bWRIu1ZZYSSLQOyCdojBnS7GyGYPZQH413Bidvnzr6mTwz1aoarx19OaCDlY9h2D904sdou6VDvR8rCC8PbmkZqIDQuipku5cRYuUe3B1IaLn8_LCtbS1/s640/blogger-image-287552985.jpg"></a></i></div><i>Gamera! </i><i>Gamera!</i><br>
<i>Hirohito </i><i>Gamera!</i><br>
<i>Hirohito Gamera!</i><br>
<i>Hirohito GAM-ER-AAAA!!!</i><p></p>
<p dir="ltr">I can never resist that silly song. Thank you for taking a lot at the start of my reviews of the Gamera Heisei trilogy, which will wrap up 2016! But before I get into Guardian of the Universe, I should probably just talk Gamera real quick. Unlike Godzilla, who I got into in elementary school, I wouldn't get into Gamera, or even hear about him for years to come. I estimate, high school years. Unlike Godzilla, which I can point to and say how I got into him, I cannot do the same with Gamera. Why? I guess mainly because sadly, Gamera has always been treated as a watered down version of Godzilla, and for a while, it really wasn't hard to see why. While my film critic side has seen worse movies, the Gamera movies of the Showa era were cheap, jumbled, flawed, ridiculous, and just...weird. And Japan can defend them as much as they want. They're pretty damn bad, and a number of them may even appear on my Top 25 Worst Big Monster movie list. </p>
<p dir="ltr">I don't exactly like saying this because I actually...really like the monster. As ridiculous as a giant flying fire breathing turtle sounds, I think he's one of the most unique monsters Japan ever conceived. Godzilla may be more iconic, but at the end of the day, we've seen giant dinosaur monsters before, some even predating the king of Monsters. While Gamera may have been created to try and compete with Godzilla, it's safe to say that there is nothing quite like Gamera, and there never will be. And so you can imagine my delights when I first watched his absolutely wonderful trilogy of the Heisei era. While not exactly perfect, these are the definitive Gamera films for me when it comes to the absolute best of the best...and even on a whole when it comes to giant monster films. I'm sure a lot of Godzilla diehards don't like admitting it, but this is one trilogy that I honestly believe can blow a lot of Godzilla films out of the water. Even when it comes to his absolute BEST films. Godzilla fans may not like admitting it, but...hard to say otherwise. Heck, some of you might recall how I said I kinda think Godzilla VS Destoroyah was as good as it was, because Gamera started his trilogy that year, and it kinda raised the bar. Godzilla had to take some notes. And it isn't exactly an implausible theory because guess who distributed this film, and the other two of this trilogy?...you guessed it. Toho. Who'd have thunk? Though I'm willing to bet even Toho lies to themselves on the existence of these films. </p>
<p dir="ltr">If you can't already tell, I love this film. When I first watched it, I was actually shocked it was as good as it was. Like...does a Gamera film deserve to be so good? Because I hate saying this, but this one film, took almost everything I hated about the weaknesses of the Godzilla films of the Heisei...and just erased them from existence. The story is easy to follow, and interesting. The characters are ten times stronger than 90% of your average Godzilla films. And the action and effects, even if a few are a bit dated, do impress and coming from a Gamera film, a monster that's been brushed aside as a cheap Godzilla knockoff, to be accomplishing so much from one film alone? Let me tell you that there is absolutely NO excuse that Godzilla films don't meet this kind of excellence more often. And you just TRY and excuse it because of budgets. You compare the measly estimated budget of this film of only about five million yen, to a WHOPPING 12 million US dollar budget of Godzilla VS King Ghidorah and tell me that budget is an obstacle. Just you fucking try. And with the budgets of Godzilla films only getting larger, I don't buy it. Not for a second!</p>
<p dir="ltr">This first entry, marking Gamera's thirtieth anniversary, isn't a flawless product, but I'm sure that after years of the Showa nonsense, anyone watching would be pleasantly surprised. Here, they pretty much wipe the entire slate of Gamera clean. So unlike Godzilla in 1984, where they kept the original movie canon, the original movie here isn't in the same continuity. And I'm happy for that. Despite some pretty fun scenes and city destruction, that movie is rather ridiculous. Instead here, we are pretty much lead to believe that Gamera is the creation of an ancient society similar to that of Atlantis or whatnot, created when their failed creations in the Gyaos Birds destroyed their civilization. This is probably the one aspect of the story I didn't care too much for. The concept of a long lost and ancient civilization being so advanced to the point of actually being able to create Kaiju? It's just a bit much for me. As this story unfolds, you realize that though this movie is maturing and taking risks it's not done before, they do keep to the traditional Gamera sprit in multiple ways. From signature roars, to how Gamera looks when he flies, to having him in a connection of a sort with a young child. Only instead of the child being young, bratty, and annoying, we actually connect with her. </p>
<p dir="ltr">Yes it needs to be said that the characters aren't perfect, but I can tell you that I was thoroughly more interested in what any of them were doing in this movie than I was in most Godzilla films. The problem with characters in those movies is that they don't have a sense of purpose, or motivation. They're there because the script has them there. While development of the characters in this movie isn't perfect, nothing seems forced. One thing I despise about Godzilla's characters is that a lot of them in the movies get involved with each other romantically. I have nothing against this, but at times there is absolutely no development between them. A lot of the time, one character will straight up reject the other. But by the end, one is promising to show the other the world as they walk down a beach holding hands. Here, each character seemed to have a distinct purpose and role. It wasn't just some generic robot pilot, or some generic evil company owner. In fact, the humans here all worked together to fight Gyaos. Sure the military now and then opened fire on Gamera, but they still presented it in a very believable way. I think they may have even briefly mentioned the post WWII military restrictions just...barely. It's not as fleshed out as in Shin Gojira, but it's still pretty cool. And true to the Showa spirit, Gamera does form a bond with a young girl, but if you're worried about it being as stupid as the Showa series...well it's a hundred times better. Instead of Gamera just immediately becoming friends with some annoying child, there's more of a spiritual bond formed with one character, who kinda becomes this "priestess" in the story. Or something. Honestly it's not my favorite thing about the movie, seeing how they go the whole prophecy route, but it's still interestingly done.</p>
<p dir="ltr">The monsters? Intimidating, impressive, well executed, and even if I'm not completely on board with their origins, they're still given a reason to exist in this movie, aside from just having one monster fight another. I absolutely love how Gyaos is this predatory bird that preys on humans, even if at times I can't help but wonder if humans would really ever sate its appetite. Or if it would really abandon some much more meaty horses when it hears a boy on a bridge cry. And on a related note, the movie manages to put in its own little Jurassic Park "one big pile of shit" joke in there when they dig into the droppings of one and find human belongings. Ha ha movie... Oh well, it is still quite a monster to behold. And don't get me started on Gamera. His introduction scene is one of the best monster intro scenes I've ever seen (though I'll be honest the introduction of Godzilla 2014 will be very hard to top). Gamera when he first appears in this film, rises out of the bay, and immediately just slams this Gyaos bird into a power plant of a sort, in this fiery explosion, before letting out his signature roar. He just rises up, kicks ass, and takes names. Never seen Godzilla do that!</p>
<p dir="ltr">One thing I was pleasantly surprised to see was that I couldn't find ONE model in this film. While the cities are destroyed in the same ways that Godzilla films are, there was something more convincing about this film, and I don't know what. Because some of the effects are very much dated. I could also spot some unpolished areas (I'm unsure, but in one shot of a helicopter, I can't help but feel they forgot to add in the sky over a blue screen in the widow), and areas where corners were cut (they did reuse a shot if a guy rolling off the rocky alcove) and at times these effects can stand out, yet in the same way, I couldn't find ONE model tank, or model boat being destroyed. Granted they do use what appears to be stock footage of certain things in this area, but there was no obvious model destruction. And this was a trick that Godzilla was still pulling in this time! So...basically what this film has done is present a great story, with superior characters, badass monsters, and more convincing effects, whilst being severely outmatched as far as its budget is concerned??? <i>DOES </i><i>THIS </i><i>MOVIE </i><i>DESERVE </i><i>TO </i><i>BE </i><i>SO </i><i>DAMN </i><i>GOOD</i>???</p>
<p dir="ltr">How's the action? Why bother asking? We all know the answer, it's gruesome, it's violent, it's chaotic, it's fun, it's all one big sight to behold, even if at times there is little explanation to why things happen as they do. Like at the end, how does Gamera revive? No explanation. It just kinda happens. But for the ride I got going up to these few and far between moments of confusion, you can bet I'll be forgiving when it comes to criticism here. The fact that a Gamera movie, on a limited budget, during a time when Godzilla was dominating the Kaiju films, to just come, do its monster justice, keep the spirit of that monster in place, while giving us so much more to behold is just unheard of. I think Toho needs to watch this film again and start taking some serious notes.</p>
<p dir="ltr">My final complaint for this movie isn't so much the movies fault as it is the people who subtitled this movie. While all the dialogue is subtitled well, one thing I found myself annoyed with is the lack of a translation when it came to Japanese text. There's little blurbs and bits of text that can appear that have zero translation. Even the newspaper headlines they show don't have a translation. I'd attempt to translate myself, but haven't the slightest clue how to read Japanese. Instead i'm just left there wondering "where are we now" or what does the paper say? Mattress sale? Oh well, it's just one annoyance I have that I can't take out on the movie. </p>
<p dir="ltr">I never thought Gamera would have a film...let alone a TRILOGY of films that would rival anything Godzilla has. It seems unheard of! Yet it was, because I think the Godzilla franchise noticed it, and stepped up their game for Godzilla VS Destoroyah. While I enjoy the Heisei era of Godzilla, really there are only two films that go into the range of excellence in that film. The others can be underwhelming, nonsensical, or even just straight up...bad. So for Gamerato just straight up surpass it on the first try? You can bet I'll be giving massive kudos to it, and you can bet I'll question if Toho has a bit of a grudge against this film...or even regrets distributing it. I don't know. I'm just happy Gamera kicks ass here. </p>
<p dir="ltr">I'm giving Gamera: Guardian of the Universe a solid three and a half star rating out of four. It's fun, it's glorious, it's thrilling, it's not perfect, but it doesn't need to be. It finally gave Gamera the justice he deserves, and it easily blows any of his Showa films out of the water, a hundred times over. It's no wonder this is often considered amongst the absolute best of Japanese daikaiju movies, and you can bet that I'm only more excited to see what part two has. But I can tell you it's still great. Let's go Gamera!</p>
<p dir="ltr">Please feel free to suggest any films you'd like to see me review. Leave a comment down below about your own thoughts to this movie and as always, thanks for reading. </p>
<p dir="ltr"><b>Final </b><b>Verdict: 3.5/4</b></p>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10255843136139755590noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3347421577153149017.post-13673317467554727932016-12-07T17:26:00.001-08:002016-12-08T07:13:19.467-08:00THROWBACK REVIEW: Godzilla VS Destoroyah (1995)<p dir="ltr"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgK7KEBWBPzI8HqgNXq9NSTCnCK_-N9gwV7hSh_9kuzv_BlZKhr74RMw0RX3fYPPw9oRVo4wesVTwydITYAFV6Ne4skc2O3unpYw3AiavMHRzfXFv8vuQYulOad_jNzZHeN_JzpKrixlSrs/s640/blogger-image--1839947927.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgK7KEBWBPzI8HqgNXq9NSTCnCK_-N9gwV7hSh_9kuzv_BlZKhr74RMw0RX3fYPPw9oRVo4wesVTwydITYAFV6Ne4skc2O3unpYw3AiavMHRzfXFv8vuQYulOad_jNzZHeN_JzpKrixlSrs/s640/blogger-image--1839947927.jpg"></a></div>Godzilla VS Destoroyah is Exhibit A when it comes to my expectations of a good Godzilla movie. Plain and simple, end of the sentence, class dismissed. This is one of the movies I look to when I set my expectations for new Godzilla movies. THIS FILM...is one of the reasons I was as harsh as I was to films like Shin Gojira! Watching it again, I found myself even more surprised with certain things. The one thing on my mind right now is that I need to get myself in the Japanese cut of this film, because in Toho, this is one of the elite films of the Godzilla franchise. Is it perfect? No. It still has common flaws that plague other Godzilla films. But when putting into perspective the absolute best of the best, if this film isn't in your top five, then shame on you. And if you're wondering why I'm tackling this film this week? I got plans I want finished before January.<p></p>
<p dir="ltr">Watching this film, I can't help but wonder if the other five films in the Heisei era are even necessary. I mean sure, events in certain films do happen which carry over into this film, but watching this, I can't help but feel that I sat through five films of filler just to get to this film. Oh well, I'm not here to complain about the other films. Let me just say that it was well worth the wait to get to this monster of a film. So with it being as good as it is, I'll once again address my problems with it before I shower the praise. The first thing that comes to mind is the setup. I think the concept of Godzilla on a meltdown, which threatens the world is a really really cool idea, but it suffers in the way the Supernova does in the Star Trek reboot film of 2009. For those who don't know what I'm talking about, in that film, a highly unstable star explodes with such force that it threatens a good chunk of the Milky Way Galaxy. The thing is, had the comics not explained why the explosion was so powerful, you'd be left with a big sense of "bullshit". And again, you'd need to read the comics to understand that. However, Godzilla doesn't have that kind of luxury, so we're left only with the suspense of disbelief, that Godzilla will reach a breaking point, explode/meltdown, and take the world with him. There's no explanation why. I would have liked one. </p>
<p dir="ltr">Another thing is that despite how incredibly awesome the climax is, I do feel that it is very underwhelming. In fact, it can be very deus ex machina in a way. I felt that the final killing blow of Destoroyah (pronounced Destroyer) was really not that impressive, and in a final film, that should have gotten me out of my seat cheering. I feel like we also get a bit of a forced happy ending, but I guess I'll talk a bit more about that shortly. </p>
<p dir="ltr">There is not a lot of room to complain here. I'm very impressed with this film. And I only own an English dub. Despite a few of the common flaws I've come across in all of these films, I loved the characters here, which branched from characters of the original film of 1954. You see Toho, this is one way of giving me a reason to care about your characters. That short explanation of Dr. Yamane having an adopted grandson who studies Godzilla often, and comes up with theories gives me a reason to care! Was he executed perfectly, no not at all, but I could follow him...even if he doesn't do much in this movie at times. The psychic characters, the pilots which remind me of Yuki from the last film, the scientist that invents that micro-oxygen, I feel these characters were all handled well, and contributed to the story. There is no dropped subplot, everything is here for a reason. And there was no forced romance! Thank you Toho. Now just remember how to make these characters so I can care about them again!</p>
<p dir="ltr">Another thing I'm giving props to strangely enough is the soundtrack. Despite having a lot of the common classic tracks that we've grown used to in these films (that make me glance over it most of the time), I do believe that more was done in this soundtrack to enhance it, and make it stand apart from other films. It made an impact almost immediately after it started playing, so Akira Ifukube gets some mad props from me for the kickass soundtrack here.</p>
<p dir="ltr">It doesn't take long to get the ball rolling in this film. In fact, right off the bat, Godzilla is rampaging in Hong Kong, and we see him scarred with that famous burning scar as we get that fun, but implausible end of the world threat. And we see a scientist conducting research in something eerily similar to Serizawa's Oxygen Destroyer, used to kill Godzilla. This was something I actually kinda liked, despite knowing that all the work on that weapon was destroyed. And it doesn't just rehash that plot! It does give us something new, and something very intimidating I must say. The only criticism I have here is that for a bunch of people facing the end of the world, there is a lot of stubbornness. One of the older characters, I think she's also from the original movie, I guess doesn't want anything like the Oxygen Destroyer ever created...yet it's hinted at that this is the only way to save the world. And so this woman was pretty much willing to destroy the world so that the thing that could save the world, which was used to save Japan before, doesn't get made again...woman I see where you're coming from, but to quote Spock... "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." This is the end of the world we're talking about! Let them make the damn thing. </p>
<p dir="ltr">This whole thing sets in motion one of the coolest stories of the entire franchise, and builds up one of the coolest monsters Godzilla will ever fight. Destoroyah. What I like about this best is that he's not just a big monster to fight Godzilla. It's this plethora of creatures that tangles with soldiers, can swarm Godzilla, combine itself, and has some really awesome powers, Destoroyah is just a beast in this, and he looks badass. Godzilla? Why even bother talking about him? He's Godzilla. His roar is fantastic, the burning is brutal...even Godzilla Junior was somewhat charming. Never thought I'd say that. </p>
<p dir="ltr">And if the monsters themselves weren't fun, the action...easily the best of the franchise. While I still think the overall effects look slightly better in Godzilla VS Mothra: Battle for Earth, the intensity, and gruesome atmosphere of these battles is on a whole other level than anything of the Heisei era. And I could be somewhat mistaken, but I do believe some of that success owes a thank you to a certain film which began its trilogy earlier that same year...you know the one. Regardless, each monster fight is an absolute treat to watch, and you will get your fair share of them, because it feels like the entire second half of this movie is pretty much a big monster fight. And it's not just monster fights. There is plenty of action that involves the humans, and it is all wonderful to watch. At times is actually downright intimidating. It's a fun cherry on top, even if the monster fights are the main spectacle here. Of course by the end, I was slightly put off by the forced happy ending, and a little underwhelmed by the lack of showing us what exactly they were describing. What I mean by that is they pretty much declare Tokyo to be an uninhabitable wasteland, but they don't really show us anything of it. A little showing of the consequences after the fight would have been great. Then we get the forced happy ending with Godzilla Junior...suddenly alive as the new King of Monsters. No explanation, despite getting obliterated by Destoroyah, he's alive and well. And the fact that we only see a split second of it just kinda irritates me. A little more explanation as to what happened after Destoroyah is defeated and Godzilla melts down (spoiler) would have been very much appreciated, and we don't get that. And before anyone asks, no, I didn't cry at that scene. I doubt a Godzilla movie will ever make me cry. </p>
<p dir="ltr">Regardless of these few flaws, Godzilla VS Destoroyah is still among the absolute best of the best. I'm actually gonna put my foot down and I say that out of all the current films that have ended Godzilla eras, from Destroy All Monsters to Final Wars, this is the best of them. When I say I hold Togo to expectations of a Godzilla movie they actually try on, this is a perfect example. It's not a best picture, I'm not even sure I wanna call it the best Godzilla film. But I can tell that they tried harder here than they did with other Godzilla films that I've been harsh towards. The characters aren't perfect, but I still liked them. The story isn't flawless, but it's still exciting. And despite it being so present in this film, I don't just consider this to be some big monster brawl fest. It's a satisfying conclusion to one of the best series of films in this franchise, which isn't afraid to take a few risks, and even give us afew nostalgic moments here and there without leaning on it. </p><p dir="ltr">It's my go to example of a proper story closing in this franchise, and therefore it easily gets one very solid three and a half star rating out of four. As much potential it did have to gain that full four star rating, there are flaws that do get at me that withhold it from that rating, but that should not matter to you because this film is amongst the best, if not the absolute best of the Heisei Era, maybe even topping Godzilla (1984). So don't question it, just watch it. It's awesome. It's spectacular. It's mind blowing. A film I'm happy to end this marathon with. And I'd have it no other way. </p>
<p dir="ltr">And that's it! That's the final Heisei Godzilla film (even if technically Godzilla is still in the Heisei era)! I'm done, and I gotta say I'm kinda thankful. You might think watching a lot of Godzilla in consecutive weeks isn't that big a deal, but when you're 26, and have a hobby of film critique, let me tell you, even with the nostalgia goggles, Godzilla doesn't always leave a good taste in your mouth. And despite my love for the Big G...a lot of the time, his movies are really silly ludicrous. Even if the final film was wicked radical. I need a beak from Godzilla. So....</p>
<p dir="ltr">LET'S GO GAMERA!!!</p>
<p dir="ltr"><i>Gamera! </i><i>Gamera! </i><i>Hirohito </i><i>Gamera! </i><i>Hirohito </i><i>Gamera! </i><i>Hirohito</i><i> </i><i><b>GAM-ER-AAAA!!!</b></i></p>
<p dir="ltr"><i> </i>See you all next week when I tackle the Heisei trilogy of everybody's favorite giant flying fire-breathing turtle monster. But until then, feel free to request any film you'd like to see me review, leave a comment down below explaining how you felt about this film, and as always, thanks for reading.</p>
<p dir="ltr"><b>Final </b><b>Verdict: 3.5/4</b></p>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10255843136139755590noreply@blogger.com0