|
I think it was just fair. Some of the battles were neat but it felt hollow because it's obvious that the only reason the movie exists is to set up a monsterverse. John Goodman was a complete waste, the Japanese girl was only there because of future movies, and everyone else was mainly bland other than Reilly. His character came dangerously close to being annoying comic relief but he was still fairly endearing. I don't think they really went anywhere with Tom Hiddleston and Brie Larson's characters. I watched the '33 Kong on Friday and the '76 version tonight and I don't know that it compares all that well with either one. Skull Island in '76 is lame as hell, but the non-Kong parts are a more entertaining movie than this one. I'm not really complaining, but it's kind of amusing how modern weapons instantly rips Kong to shreds in '76 but this version basically shrugs it off (they need to make him impossibly tough to handle radioactive giant lizards and three-headed space dragons in the future). And it's amazing that a 1933 movie still blows this one away in production design. These monsters felt a bit perfunctory and I didn't really care for the skullcrawlers all that much.
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2017 03:44
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 04:58 |
|
|
MrJacobs posted:Kong isn't a protector of humanity, he just happens to gently caress up the poo poo that wants to kill humanity because it also wants to kill kong. The Humans built a wall for a reason. Also, Kong only saved the girl because he has a thing for white women.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2017 15:49
|
|
|
Horrible Taste posted:I'm pretty sure the Skullcrawlers were inspired more by the two-legged lizard briefly seen in the original King Kong
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2017 16:06
|
|
