Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Ouze wrote:
Probably no reason to start a new thread.

Just saw this. It's the best movie I saw this year - I'd give it a 12/10. Yes, I liked it more than John Wick 2, but thats a different thread.

Yes, there is a post-credits scene.

Reviews have been surprisingly good. I think the Wife and I will go see it next week.

 Ouze wrote:
That's a fair question.

Without spoilers, it's got a great cast. Everyone in it does a great job, but especially Samuel L. Jackson, who of course does the eye-bugging thing several times.

The action is incredible, it's got some legitimate laugh out loud moments without ruining the tone, and it's not a story that tries to be anything other than what it is: a monster movie and a really great one. Well, I think it might also be a parable about American arrogance in Vietnam but lets gloss over that because I am a simple creature with simple pleasures. The point is, this isn't (2014) Godzilla, where you never see the action - you see all of it, and lots of it. Lots of "holy gak" moments. They don't pack in anything extraneous or unnecessary - like, there is no romantic plot arc awkwardly packed in there.

I would call it a much better Pacific Rim, a movie I also liked but which severely hampered by bad plotting and, at times, corny dialogue. If you hated Pacific Rim, you'll probably hate this too.

It's never going to get an oscar, but it's probably my favorite monster movie now.

Sorry for being terse. I was honestly shocked to see a positive review for this film. Of all the movies coming out this year, Kong seemed like the easiest to skip, a no brainier.

The comparison to Pacific Rim has peaked my curiosity. The contrast with GodzzZzzzZzilla has also raised my expectations. How would you compare or contrast this movie with Peter Jackson's King Kong, which was also sold on action?

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
That's a fair question.

Without spoilers, it's got a great cast. Everyone in it does a great job, but especially Samuel L. Jackson, who of course does the eye-bugging thing several times.

The action is incredible, it's got some legitimate laugh out loud moments without ruining the tone, and it's not a story that tries to be anything other than what it is: a monster movie and a really great one. Well, I think it might also be a parable about American arrogance in Vietnam but lets gloss over that because I am a simple creature with simple pleasures. The point is, this isn't (2014) Godzilla, where you never see the action - you see all of it, and lots of it. Lots of "holy gak" moments. They don't pack in anything extraneous or unnecessary - like, there is no romantic plot arc awkwardly packed in there.

I would call it a much better Pacific Rim, a movie I also liked but which severely hampered by bad plotting and, at times, corny dialogue. If you hated Pacific Rim, you'll probably hate this too.

It's never going to get an oscar, but it's probably my favorite monster movie now.

Check Rotten tomoatoes. Its getting quite good reviews actually.


Sorry for being terse. I was honestly shocked to see a positive review for this film. Of all the movies coming out this year, Kong seemed like the easiest to skip, a no brainier.

The comparison to Pacific Rim has peaked my curiosity. The contrast with GodzzZzzzZzilla has also raised my expectations. How would you compare or contrast this movie with Peter Jackson's King Kong, which was also sold on action?

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Sorry for being terse. I was honestly shocked to see a positive review for this film. Of all the movies coming out this year, Kong seemed like the easiest to skip, a no brainier.

The comparison to Pacific Rim has peaked my curiosity. The contrast with GodzzZzzzZzilla has also raised my expectations. How would you compare or contrast this movie with Peter Jackson's King Kong, which was also sold on action?

I didn't think you were terse.

I would say it is similar in tone to Peter Jackson's movie, but I am really biased in that I can't stand Jack Black so that was a big negative for me. John Goodman initially seems to be in the Jack Black type role but his performance is much more understated since, as it turns out, he's only interested in

There are quite a few scenes of people getting killed in unexpected, grotesque ways such as the "worms with teeth" scene in the PJ version. I liked the PJ version as well but this is a somewhat different story and I liked this one more.

Hmmm. John Goodman is the kind of actor who could play Hitler and make me feel like maybe the Fuhrer got a raw deal, his underlings letting him down like that. On the other hand, I really, really did not enjoy the PJ version of Kong.

You can spoiler the answer of you like, but does Kong kill a lot of people while the movie portrays him as a sympathetic victim/hero?

Comparing it to the new Godzilla, I find the movie excelled much better at filling in the spaces between King Kong scenes. The movie either gave us brief moments with other creatures on the island or interesting and entertaining characters when Kong wasn't smashing helicopters. John Reilly was easily one of the most entertaining characters in the movie.

Stay for a post credit scene. Certainly makes things more interesting.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
You can spoiler the answer of you like, but does Kong kill a lot of people while the movie portrays him as a sympathetic victim/hero?

If you hated the PJ movie, I think you're gonna dislike this too though even with it's differences.

Well.

I loved it.

Yeah it's has some sloppy pacing, a bloated cast, and a couple of eyerollingly cheesy moments. More importantly the CGI is ... well, just more CGI I guess.

BUT MAN OH MAN THOSE MONSTER FIGHTS!

Somebody sat down and said, look Godzilla did not work that well. We need to learn some lessons. We need less bland pretension and more pulp adventure. And they actually fething did it. Some Hollywood execs learned the right lessons from what went flat in another film. I can hardly believe I am typing these words ...

King Kong owes so much to Godzilla on this score. We get lots of Kong, whereas we got way too little of Big G. And unlike poor Godzilla, Kong actually got to be a character in his movie. Oh and his fights are not only awesome, they last for more than 5 minutes! Whoda thunk? Finally, the humans were not wooden nobodies. Yes, over the top caroons are better than wooden nobodies. Tahnk you Hollywood for a hugely fun kaiju film!

This is great news!

If Ouze and Manchu say this is a Good Monster Movie - this is a Good Monster Movie!

I mean, sure, I was going to see it either way, but now I'm REALLY looking forward to watching this one...

...hopefully tonight!

Sweet!! This will end up being my first King Kong film!!

Is the action more pacific rimmy or is it PJ slap sticky? A fairly big complaint I had for the PJ film was that there was a lot of action, but it was all cringe-inducing.

I saw it last night, I think Manchu as pretty much said what I would say about, other than stay for the end credit scene.
The pace was good and it was nice monster movie that has a good mix of humans and monsters. If the quality continues I am hopefully for a good Godzilla and more monster movies for the future.

The action is closer to Pacific Rim. I just rewatched the T-Rex fight scene from PJ's film and it was ok but the monsters move more like sleek martial artists than huge, powerful beasts. K:SI fights feel a lot heavier.

Well, against my better judgement I went to see this film. I am so glad I did. It almost feels like the director pushed Gareth Edwards and Peter Jackson aside and said, "No, this is how you make a kaiju movie."

The plot was simple, the characters quirky, the dialogue stylized and ominous, the direction precise; the movie knew its business so the monster could take care of his. There was an economy to everything related to the plot, giving the characters, even the monsters, room to go big. Get some quippy people on screen and then chase them with freaky monsters. Let the characters and the monster interact to establish scale and chemistry, but for goodness' sake don't get all sappy about it. Also, it helped that they jettisoned Kong's fetish and human sacrifice baggage.


I'm feeling much more positive about Kong vs Godzilla: Kaiju Assemble.

 Mr Nobody wrote:
Comparing it to the new Godzilla, I find the movie excelled much better at filling in the spaces between King Kong scenes. The movie either gave us brief moments with other creatures on the island or interesting and entertaining characters when Kong wasn't smashing helicopters. John Reilly was easily one of the most entertaining characters in the movie..

This right here feels like the most important lesson in making a good Kaiju movie. Not a tedious moment.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
One last thought: in the first two minutes of the PJ movie, I knew I would hate it. It started slow and proceeded slow. With Skull Island, I knew I would love it in the first two minutes; the movie starts with a jolt, then transitions to a scene about a lobbyist pressuring a congressman that was far more entertaining and insightful than the entirety of PJKK and Godzilla2014 put together. I actually thought to myself, "I could watch an entire movie of just these characters interacting like this." The "boring set up" was fun.

Very good call on being sold two minutes in - same here.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Well, against my better judgement I went to see this film. I am so glad I did. It almost feels like the director pushed Gareth Edwards and Peter Jackson aside and said, "No, this is how you make a kaiju movie."

The plot was simple, the characters quirky, the dialogue stylized and ominous, the direction precise; the movie knew its business so the monster could take care of his. There was an economy to everything related to the plot, giving the characters, even the monsters, room to go big. Get some quippy people on screen and then chase them with freaky monsters. Let the characters and the monster interact to establish scale and chemistry, but for goodness' sake don't get all sappy about it. Also, it helped that they jettisoned Kong's fetish and human sacrifice baggage.

Agree 100%

One of the most fun movies I have seen in ages. Brilliant casting, monsters are all well designed, brilliant soundtrack (whoever thought of crossing it with a kind of 'Nam movie is an absolute genius), and manages to get that delicate balance of not taking itself too seriously yet not deliberately being a gakky scy-fy channel b-movie perfectly.

Well worth the trip to the cinema if you haven't yet been, in the UK at least it still has a few showings on.