The King is Slumming It

March 2017 was poised to be a great month, starting with Logan, Beauty and the Beast, Ghost in the Shell, the perfectly bad-looking Power Rangers and this, Kong: Skull Island. Back when Legendary announced this project, it seemed no one wanted this. But then the cast was assembled and holy shit it was star-studded. Tom Hiddleston, Brie Larson, Samuel L. Jackson, Toby Kebbell, John Goodman, and Dr. Dre + Eazy E. It's a promising cast, to be honest, for a film nobody wanted. I'd let the token Chinese actress slide if it turned out great. But spoiler alert, it didn't. If you're looking for a review that embraces this film, you can search somewhere else. The story is pretty straightforward, there's a scientist who's going to find new species/prove their theories, while tagging along to some soldiers. Then they go to Skull Island and find Kong and other beasts.

Let's start with the good stuff first. Consistently for at least the first half of the film, the film was filled with striking imageries that looked hella cool. A standout scene is the bomb drop on Skull Island. And afterwards, just any reaction shots sometimes look cool, or whenever Samuel L. Jackson is ready to rain down fire on Kong is also cool. The Kong fight scenes are good, but they're not for me, or at least after the preposterousness I've endured, the awesome fight scenes just don't pay off. The biggest crime here is the story and characters. If you think the characters in Godzilla are bland, prepare to be surprised because this is blander. And one of the scriptwriters is Dan Gilroy who made Nightcrawler! There are definitely some good ideas in the script but they were never developed fully. For example, Sam Jackson's Packard is obviously the most interesting character, who lost the Vietnam War but had to live it and going to war so soon after that so it gave him a chance for redemption. But, don't mind him just look at that giant spider stomping at y'all! CGI is not even impressive. We've seen the Planet of the Apes reboot franchise, Pacific Rim, or Peter Jackson's way superior King Kong, and the CGI in those films were almost flawless. Not only CGI, but green screen stuff is so bad. Just refer to the first few minutes of the film to see, and sometimes even in character close-ups are distracting? Why? DoP is Larry Fong though who frequently works with Zack Snyder, so he could do his job super good right?

The actors are the most wasted properties in this film. They have Toby Kebbell, who could do a lot of stuff. But instead just make him interact with a stupid log monster. Academy Award winner Brie Larson reduced to Ken Watanabe in Godzilla, but without any catchy line. Tom Hiddleston once again proved that he may not be able to act if it's not Loki. John Goodman, wasted. Shea Wigham, wasted. I mean wasted in talent, but you could interpret it differently too. The only small glimmer in the cast are John C. Reilly and to some extent Jason Mitchell. John C. Reilly is like Bill Nighy in Wrath of the Titans, giving new energy in a boring film, CGI-laden film. And by all the beasts in this film, don't give Jing Tian anymore starring roles. She was bad enough in this film with only three lines and a weapon, if you haven't seen The Great Wall, save yourself by not watching it, at least open your eyes when Pablo Pascal or Matt Damon is onscreen. Not to mention her character couldn't be shoehorned in a subtler manner. John Goodman and Corey Hawkins are scientists looking for funding and support in USA and suddenly on the boat comes this Chinese biologist and we're supposed to be okay with that? It's not about diversity, this is just bad business move. At least make her character memorable or important. I am quite sure that anything with Legendary and a Chinese studio is going to be like this until they decide to separate. If this is the kind of film we're going to see for the Godzilla sequel or their eventual versus film, I might be skipping these kind of films altogether.

Note to studios: Internet/fandom ideas are not feasible for a good film, or at least it's not going to be good if they're serving a bigger scheme. I mean, Samuel L. Jackson vs. King Kong is a film everyone wants to see right? But because we know Kong is going to live for the sequel, we also know Sam Jackson is going to lose. Jordan Vogt-Roberts has a knack for spectacle, it's sad to see a good talent like him got a script this bad for his first big blockbuster and also if he keeps ripping off ideas from previous, established films. In conclusion, this trip to Skull Island is extremely half-assed and not worthwhile at all. Kong: Skull Island: rated 1.5/4

PS.
I haven't been disappointed in a film like this since Independence Day: Resurgence. And I'm actually easy to please. Also, it seemed that the critics just decide to lower their standards just for this film. Hmmm. And there's an after-credits scene but fuck me if I had to stay one minute longer after the credits roll for this movie.

PPS.

I thought the 'Skull Crawlers' was an uninspiring monster design,

it's like a bad mix of Indominus Rex and those stupid Great Wall monsters.

But here are more uninspiring moments that I could point out right away...

That Hiddleston samurai scene is basically the worst in the film. 

It obviously references 300 but did it unbelievably poor.

Pacific Rim is still king of American kaiju/monster films. 

K:SI definitely took the bat/sword idea from it.

This is just embarassing now.

Sorry, I just really was expecting this film to be at least enjoyable for me.

Highlight the words 'for me'

You can definitely have different opinions.

Anyway, great job for the people involved in the film who did it with their heart.

If you're cashing in or you're one of the Chinese studio execs, fuck you.

Up next: more film reviews but I might do a post on the films with China co-production. Because now it's getting irritating.

One Last Ride, First Bloody Ride

Saw Logan last week on Wednesday but too busy to write a post. This is one of my most anticipated superhero films of the year because it is wildly different from the MCU or DCEU offerings. This is an R-rated, violent and mature superhero film with Hugh Jackman and Patrick Stewart on their last film in the X-Men films. The story is set in 2029 when most of the mutants are gone. Logan and Charles Xavier are practically the only mutants left from the X-Men squad. Logan is noticeably older and less powerful, while Professor X is basically an old man in a nursing home. Their lives changed after the arrival of a young mutant named Laura and she is so awesome; and also chased by mysterious enhanced mercenaries.

By the first time Logan fights a group of gangbangers, we can know that this film is going to be different and in a good way. It's way more violent and laced with profanity every one minute. It's just satisfying to see Wolverine kill people that left blood on his adamantium claws. Or how it is just as bloody for Wolverine or X-23 when they pull out their claws. Hugh Jackman delivered his best as Wolverine and I thought this was the most fitting film for to do as Wolvie at his age. I thought even in X-Men: DOFP he's quite pushing it to be the young Wolverine in 1970s. Patrick Stewart is also amazing in this film, while we didn't see him in action much but his role is so touching and important. If there is a special Oscar for blockbusters, then both Jackman and Stewart deserves a nom, even in the regular Oscars, I'd say Stewart could be at least considered for Best Supporting Actor just like John Goodman was last year for 10 Cloverfield Lane. And also, my god, Dafne Keen as Laura/X-23. That girl can slaayyyy (I regret writing this sentence).

True kudos should go to James Mangold, already an accomplished director with Walk the Line and Girl, Interrupted, he finally made his mark with his second outing for the adamantium-filled mutant. His first Wolverine film was also exceptional but it was let down by the ridiculous, superhero-cliche third act. I liked that film for having an important human drama but then again come DOFP, that timeline was erased. I like the nuances in this film and how the film took its time with the characters, I thought it was great. The thing I didn't like the most is how they inserted a super lazy villain that took those nuances away (especially that one important scene with Patrick Stewart and the bad guy just came). And I thought the film forced its ending. If they need that ending, they could do it less forced than that. Also, the film opened up possibilities for a prequel to this film that's going to sound more interesting than all the planned X-Men films (excl. Deadpool 2) and of course sounds way better than X-Men: Apocalypse. But why aren't they chasing this storyline?

The film is often dubbed as The Dark Knight of the X-Men franchise. I will manage your expectation by saying it's nowhere near that but at least it's similar to Batman Begins: dark, gritty, satisfying but laced with plot holes. Nevertheless, it's a great sendoff for Hugh Jackman and Patrick Stewart, as well as a great show of talent by Dafne Keen. I hope they never cast another Wolverine or another Professor X. Logan: rated 3.5/4