Kong: Skull Island -- Movie Review and Kong Flick Comparison, Part 3

Note: this entry is the last of 3 about Kong: Skull Island. Part 1 is here, two days ago. Part 2 is here, from yesterday.

Photo: Kong and Apocalypse Now Crossover Shot. (Don't ask where the natives got the hydraulics necessary to build this.) From this IMDb page.

The movie might not make you feel smarter, but you'll perhaps nod along with some cultural references and homages, unless you were born after, say, 2001.

First, as you see in the poster above, there's a nod to 1986's Platoon. Speaking of war movies, there are a few very obvious nods to Apocalypse Now and Heart of Darkness. We've got major characters named Conrad (after Heart of Darkness's author, Joseph Conrad) and Marlow (after the main character in both Conrad's book and Francis Ford Coppola's movie, which takes place in Viet Nam [another nod] and is based on Conrad's book).

And the movie's most famous line--"The horror...the horror..."--is lifted directly off the pages of Conrad's book, without credit. Ugh.

Photo: The famous Apocalypse Now poster, from its IMDb page

If that wasn't enough, John C. Reilly's character is obviously Dennis Hopper's zany (and drugged-up) photographer from Apocalypse Now--a direct comparison. Almost an exact copy. And both novel and film is mostly about a boat trip up a river to capture someone who's thought to be very dangerous--and is--but who also has a shocking truth to tell, and whose anger and possible insanity is distressingly easy to understand and relate to. He is not what he seems, or what you've been told he is. Or what you'd expect. That's Kong in this movie, which you'll definitely see.

And Kong is Kurtz from the book and movie. And Kong and Kurtz are both worshiped by the jungle's natives (Conrad's Kurtz, from the book, is in the Congo, while the movie Kurtz is in Viet Nam.) And the choppers in the movie's poster is a direct reference to the famous opening of Apocalypse Now, with its choppers, and all three works, the book and the two Kong movies, all have the same theme: Mankind has a heart of darkness to all living things, including mankind.

Samuel L. Jackson's character is a mad Ahab from Moby Dick, but is even more a direct copy of his man-loving, man-is-all-powerful character from Deep Blue Sea. This is such an exact duplicate of that role that I'm a bit surprised that he hasn't come into more critical panning. True, Christoph Waltz won two Oscars for essentially playing the same role in consecutive Quentin Tarantino movies (and his turn in Inglorious Basterds was much better), but, still...Maybe Jackson would've been criticized more if his name had been, say, Brie Larson.

But I'm over it.

So if you like creature movies, and if you remember the Creature Double Feature flicks with a little fondness, and if you know your war movies, literature, and cultural references, or if you just like a good popcorn flick that's very fast-paced, that looks great, that has a directorial flair of its own, and that looks like a franchise that promises more of the same, go see it. It's right up there with Spielberg's original Jurassic Park, and with the latest Jurassic World, and with Jackson's King Kong, though maybe it finishes just a notch below these in overall value. Still, well worth your time.

Kong: Skull Island -- Movie Review and Kong Flick Comparison, Part 2

Note: This blog is a second part of yesterday's blog entry.

Photo: Tom Hiddleston, Brie Larson, John C. Reilly, and the Skull of One of Kong's Parents, from this IMDb page.

Brie Larson (who infamously stood, without applauding, as Casey Affleck won his Oscar for Best Actor just last month. This was the other thing that telecast was known for, besides the texting Price/Waterhouse fool screwing up the last Best Picture award) has come into a lot of criticism for accepting this role after she won the Oscar last year for Best Actress (for Room; and she's soon to appear as Jeannette Walls in the movie of Walls's excellent memoir, The Glass Castle) in a much more serious and important film, but what the hell is that about? Oscar or not, if you're a woman in Hollywood and you're given a role that may become a shot at a franchise and a chance to make big bucks in three or four movies, don't you take that? With the length of women's careers in Hollywood, and the lack of roles that don't involve some sort of nudity or inadvertent (or purposeful) sexism, don't you take a role that might lead to a few more movies and big paychecks in which you at least get to do your own running around, and no guy grabs your hand and makes you run with him? Yup, I sure do. She did. Plenty of guys have in such film franchises, right?And who says she had a ton of other better offers at the time? Ridiculous and sexist criticism against her here. She's an actor making a living. No more, no less. Why does it have to be anything else? Drives me nuts, our society's and culture's attitude towards women. Nobody criticizes guys who always take such roles, but who are capable of better, right? Tom Cruise, Mel Gibson, Bruce Willis and more have gone that route. Willis especially could've done great supporting work in films as good as his Nobody's Fool, for example, and Tom Cruise's best work have been in films like Jerry Maguire, Rain Man, and Born on the Fourth of July. But these guys, and many others, have made the action flicks and the big bucks, and nobody criticizes them. You would think movie critics, who get paid to know movies more than I do, would realize this and not say such crap about women--in this case, Brie Larson. I say, it has made me mad. ::takes a breath:: ::gets over it::

Photo: Brie Larson, from Kong: Skull Island, ready to shoot a flare at her next sexist critic. Or at Casey Affleck. (Sorry.) From IMDb.

Well, a little off track here...Let's reel it back in.

After a brief foreward of sorts, the set-up for the rest of this movie is pretty standard: the characters are told they'll be dropped off at the southern tip of the island, and picked up three days later at the northern part. At this point, even a three-year old can see that they'll get trapped on the island, and have to fight their way through it for three days before they're rescued. That's the set-up, in typical action-flick fashion. When they drop bombs to see if the island is hollow and safe (???), you would expect problems, and you get them, and unless you have a heart of stone, you probably feel the characters deserve what they get. I mean, they were dropping bombs on an island where they knew living beings existed, and if you don't get the Viet Nam political message there, then I can't help you at all with this review. (The movie takes place during the Viet Nam War and involves Viet Nam soldiers. Did I mention that?) So the crap hits the fan, and you know there's going to be a lot of mayhem and running around, which there is. In truth, there's probably nothing in this movie you haven't seen before, but it does it so incredibly fast and well, with some shots that will really impress you, especially when creatures stand in front of an apocalyptic firebomb, etc. to express menace and danger...Well, you've seen it before, yes, but probably not this well. And fast. And fun.

Plus, there's a little more...tomorrow.

Kong: Skull Island -- Movie Review and Kong Flick Comparison

Photo: from the film's Wikipedia page

Very, very entertaining monster pic that wasn't on my radar at all, but which caught my eye during its previews during other films, like Get Out (review to come soon). Quick warning: Wait until the end of the credits before you go, or you'll miss an entertaining segment that promises much for the future. 

It ends with a bang that really defines what works with this movie: It's simple, loud, visually eye-popping, and it has a sense of its own style that is similar to other monster (and other classic) movies, but which defines itself as well. You'll want to see this one, and probably to buy it for a rainy day when you're in the mood for a good monster flick. I'm thinking of watching it, back-to-back, with Gareth Edwards' recent Godzilla, and Peter Jackson's King Kong. 

Photo: 1976's King Kong, from its Wikipedia page. [For Christmas?]

Because the comparison is gonna happen, I'll get it out of the way here: this movie, and Jackson's film, are really apples and oranges. (And 1933's King Kong is a different food group entirely, by comparison to this one. This movie actually is closer to the so-so 1976 King Kong, but without Jeff Bridges's caveman look and Jessica Lange's unintentionally hilarious "Eat me! Eat me!" dialogue to an understandably perplexed King Kong. Lange gave it her best, but by God what a thankless role. Still, it made her a star. Naomi Watts's turn was an Oscar-worthy effort by comparison, but she had a much better script to work with. And the '76 film showed what not to do, which helps.) Anyway, this movie and Jackson's film don't try to do the same thing, as this is a reboot prequel with an eye to a franchise, and Jackson's was a straight-up remake that didn't want to go anyplace else. (But without it, Gareth Edwards's Godzilla doesn't get the go-ahead.) 

Photo: King Kong (and Naomi Watts), directed by Peter Jackson, from its Wikipedia page

Having said that, my better half liked Jackson's film better, and I'd have to agree, but only if you follow the difference I've just said. Jackson's film has better acting, and maybe better directing (though Jordan Vogt-Roberts does an excellent job here, which I'll get to; it may be a tie), but it also is much more depressing (remember the sucking creatures scene?!?) and it has the all-time sad ending that we know is coming. Naomi Watts does a better job with her character than Brie Larson (who I like) does here, but Watts's character had a lot more depth, and she had a lot more to do. Larson never gets that chance with her script, and does the best she can with the words she got. Essentially, she runs around and looks horrified, and then pleased, and then horrified, and then she runs around a lot again. But she does it all well, with spunk and grit. Her character has a point to make, though I'm not sure anyone knows what it is, including the moviemakers, us, and Brie Larson. (Actually, she's the audience's aghast stand-in figure.) Again, she does what she can with a one-note role. In truth, all the characters are one-note roles, without much else to say or stand for.
I mean, it's an action film, with creatures and such. Did Jurassic Park have great acting, outside maybe Jeff Goldblum? Nope.

This review of Kong: Skull Island continues tomorrow...

American Horror Story: Asylum

Photo: A promo poster for the show, on its Wikipedia page

I've been trying forever to get to this series, which I'd DVR-ed.  Turns out, I somehow missed the first episode, and--since two episodes started later than they were supposed to--I missed fifteen minutes or so on those two episodes.

At any rate, I came into the house exhausted from working outside in the heat for five hours--I didn't take any breaks, and was often so lightheaded that I became dizzy and nauseous, but I did the day--and sat down and didn't want to get up.  Thinking I was now in my best position to at least start the series, I did so--and then watched them all, until about three in the morning.  That was about 11 1/2 straight episodes--fast-forwarded through all the commercials, of course.

So, since it's been nominated for a million Emmys, here's my two cents of it:

--Very compulsively watchable, despite the characters being in so many implausible situations.

--Jessica Lange was the best of the bunch, as she apparently was last year when she took home the Emmy. 

--I don't know what's so exactly American about American Horror Story.  Seems more French to me, in a very Sartre-like, "Hell is other people," kind of way.   But if you don't know that, and you thought it was a lot like Lost, well, then, there you go.  I got an Agatha Christie, And Then There Were None vibe while watching the series, too.

--(I'm reminded of the time I saw a few minutes of one of the first episodes of the first season of Lost.  I told someone the island was obviously a Sartre-like Hell, and that "Hell is other people," and I never had to watch a single episode again.  When it was all over, years later, the girl I said that to said I'd ruined it for her, that she wasn't surprised at the end, and that she'd been ticked that I'd been right about the whole thing in five minutes.  I admit that I'm a bit of a killjoy that way.  I did the same thing while sitting in the theatre, watching The Sixth Sense.  The Bruce Willis character was obviously dead, and the real tipping-point for me was when he was at dinner with his wife, and the waitress placed the bill on the table, facing her.  Waitresses purposely don't point the bill at the guy anymore, but they still did in 1999.)

--I got the Hell aspect of the show, and that Briarcliffe was supposed to be that, but it became suspension-of-disbelief impossible that they'd all get put back there by the State of Massachusetts so many times.  I mean, I went with it, but...it almost derailed my viewing between episodes six through nine, or so.

--The demon didn't seem to have a fully compelling agenda.  I know that the angelic sister was battling the demon the whole time, but, still...Demons normally have plans of destruction, or something, right?  This one seemed content to take part in a battle of wills with the Nazi doctor, the sister in charge, and the Monsignor--all battles that she was apparently content to lose most of the time, as well.  The demon in The Exorcist at least wanted to conquer some souls and kick some ass.

--Jessica Lange's Boston accent was both right-on, and too exaggerated, at the same time.  Odd.

--It also doesn't seem reasonable that the girl she ran over ended up living a productive, mobile life.

--Her thinking that she'd run her over, blaming herself her whole life, drinking again, and all for what?  I realize there's a lesson in there, somewhere.

--What're the chances of a fake nun, a demon, a possessed man, some aliens, some inhuman creatures, and a Nazi doctor all being in the same building at the same time?  Maybe that's the American part.

--There were many homages to Psycho, especially, but other American films as well.  One of the many notable Psycho homages was when a woman entered the behavorial therapist's (or whatever she was) office, and found the therapist sitting in her chair, hair to us, facing away.  I expected her to turn the chair around, and to hit a swinging light fixture as she screamed.

--I'm no prude, but...I don't know.  I have to admit to being a little uncomfortable knowing that so many crude sexual references, so much cursing, and so much nudity was on commercial television.  I'm surprisingly prudish for such a liberal-minded guy.

--I still watched it all, of course, hypocrite that I am.  Perhaps that's the American part as well.

--It's not every day that you see a nun forcing sex on a Monsignor.  While wearing black garters.

--The suicidal driver who picked up the reporter when she escaped must've been thinking, "Of all the suicidal guys' cars in all the state, she has to jump into mine."

--While watching, I must've said, "What?" two hundred times.  Usually after what someone said.

--Speaking of being such a prude, I couldn't get over the constantly-repeated massage gel commercial.  Times, they are a changin'.

--I didn't expect the Monsignor to throw the nun off the stairway.  But I did expect the Nazi doctor to become permanently bereft about it.

--Of course, he was already permanently bereft, in many other ways.

--I expected things to get easier for Lange's character after she was born again, but instead they got much harder.  I know the Lord works in mysterious ways, but after awhile He didn't seem to be working in Briarcliffe at all.

--Of course, the asylum was Hell on Earth, so that sort of makes sense, but still...

--The series wrapped up very well, showing what happened to all the characters.  It ended like a Stephen King book has ended lately, at least in the last ten years or so.  Very bittersweet, sad but not.  That speaks well of how the show (and King, I suppose) led us to care about the characters.

--The aliens seemed to also be very hands-off in the series, much like the demon.  It feels odd to have just typed that.  But it's true.  The aliens didn't try to save the two women at all.  And I can understand each of the women's POV, too.  One felt raped, the other raptured.  I would've felt like the first, too.

--I saw the rebooted Star Trek movies before this, so it was hard for me to see Spock doing those things.  Speaking of being a killjoy, I nailed him as Bloody Face right away.  Had to be him.  He was the only good character on the show at the time.

--Speaking of that, Jessica Lange has come a long way since King Kong.  That was in 1976, by the way, for those of you who didn't feel old enough already.

--That little girl perhaps disturbed me the most out of everyone.  I've read lots of nonfiction books that said that five-year-olds can indeed by evil psychopaths.  After killing her family, she's never referenced again, with quite a few episodes remaining.  Maybe in Season Three?  Though every season is a different story, she can find her way into the show again if the writers really want her to.

--Having a show's cast be like a repertory theatre troupe is a good idea.

--Very good show, overall.  I did watch it for about twelve straight hours, which perhaps says something unfortunate about me as well.  And, no, I didn't have to get up for work in the morning.

Sherlock Holmes--A Game of Shadows

Photo: Movie poster, from its Wikipedia page.

Very visually appealing, fast-paced, intelligent, fun and styled film that stretches the limits of Conan Doyle's character--but not as far as you'd think.  You'd have to read the stories to appreciate this, but Basil Rathbone's Holmes was only a small part of the total person; he wasn't all big hat and big pipe, deducer and inducer.  He was also a boxer, a fighter, an addict (which this film strays from somewhat) and many of the things that Downey's Holmes is--though, of course, not to the degree that Downey and Ritchie play him.

The sets are awesome, though I suspect that there's more CGI then I think...a lot more.  But they are still impressive, especially to a lover of the 1890s as I am.  You'll never catch all of the small things that Holmes sees and induces and deduces (though I was proud to have caught the dead plant), so don't try to hard.  As Roger Ebert says in his mostly-positive review--it's not the creaking-stairs and super-intellectual 1890s that you'll see here, so just sit back and enjoy the ride.  I wanted to see this because I became a great fan of the first Downey film, and if you liked that one, you'll very much like this one.  There's more scenery, more action, more thinking ahead, more clues, and a villain that is, in fact, Holmes' equal, intellectually and physically.  The only thing you won't see more of, sadly, is Rachel McAdams, and her statement of warning to him at the end of the first film is a harbinger of sorts here.  Or is it?  One never knows.

As a follower of the stories, most of the elements are here in the film, including the dive into the falls that so famously ends one of Doyle's stories.  It's the one where he tried to kill Holmes off, as Doyle was sick of him, and he wanted to write more of what he thought was more important--his histories and mysticism books.  The general public and even Doyle's own mother disagreed, to the point that they, and she, ordered Doyle to bring Holmes back.  Which he did, but in an unfortunately tortured and twisted way.  The movie, I have to say, handles it much better.  Nothing is, indeed, what it seems.  But, then again, we live in a world of seems.

Robert Downey is again very, very good.  True, he's an American playing a Brit, with nothing close to an accent, but what the hey.  Jude Law is very good as well.  They are both charismatic and they get along very well on-screen.  (In a way, theirs is the true relationship--and, yes, that's hinted at, as well.)  Noomi Rapace is good, in a limited role.  I suspect that her Lisbeth Salander from the original Swedish films was much better.  (Seeing the dubbed originals is on my list of things to do.)  Jared Harris is super as Moriarity--so much so, that you hope to see more of him in the next, too.  (Though I doubt it.) 

Go see it.  Read the stories, too, but forgive the filmmakers for the liberties they take.  They have been surprisingly faithful to the character and to the gist of the series.  The direction is top-notch; can't say enough about it, especially their travails through the forest.  It's stop-action of a different sort (not of the King Kong 1933 type, if you've seen that).  It's a combination of all the mystery, clues, action, direction, sets and overall Victorian-ism--with 21st Century direction.  A really intelligent action film.  What's more old/modern than that?