New skull island vs king kong 2005 vs godzilla
Posted Mar-19-2017 3:16 AM
It (Skull Island) was good as a monster movie and required for the whole 'king kong vs godzilla' debacle coming in 2020. A bit cliche and predictable, and as a King Kong movie, not EVEN CLOSE to the 2005 rendition of King Kong. That King Kong was absolutely full of personality and character, and displayed clear and impressive animated expressions of anger, confusion, love, pride, humiliation, embarrassment, protection, imperfection, happiness, laughter, failure and empathy. The 2005 version was also a LOT more realistic and practical with proportions and realism. He was a giant silverback gorilla and looked completely natural. He even had a screwed up jaw and snaggle tooth. The new one looks like a man in a suit, standing straight up, unnaturally. This new Kong expressed a whole lot of anger and maybe a tiny bit of empathy. As a King Kong movie it failed miserably since the 2005 version exists. As a general monster movie it was perfectly fine. I'd definitely put it behind Godzilla 2014 and King Kong 2005, but it is required since it will be part of the Godzilla universe that will include Ghidorah, Rodan and Mothra.
For everyone complaining about Godzilla 2014 not having enough monster fights, that's exactly what made the movie so great. If there had been monster fights every 10 minutes of the movie, by the end of the movie those monster fights would not have been nearly as special. The fights that we did get, for this reason, were extra special and epic. I feel like they couldn't have done a better job with the 2014 movie. It was perfect in my opinion. I didn't get nearly the feeling with Skull Island. It was very predictable and cliche, but it was entertaining as a monster movie.
Posted Mar-19-2017 3:19 PM
"The 2005 version was also a LOT more realistic and practical with proportions and realism. He was a giant silverback gorilla and looked completely natural."
In other words he was a bland and uninteresting creature design. King Kong is not a blown up silverback gorilla, he's supposed to look like a cinematic monster--Something that doesn't exist. Realism is not key here. Creating a cinematic and engaging creature that stands out is. The 2005 Kong was the most uninspired look for Kong yet and thumbed its nose at the original in terms of how fantastical it was.
"The new one looks like a man in a suit, standing straight up, unnaturally."
Which is what King Kong is supposed to look like. He stood straight up in the original. He stood straight up in King Kong vs. Godzilla. He stood straight up in King Kong Escapes. He stood straight up in King Kong '76 and he stood straight up in King Kong Lives. If anything, it's the 2005 design that's the least Kong-like, failing to be a creature that separates itself from "normal" looking animals.
"As a King Kong movie it failed miserably since the 2005 version exists."
And the 2005 movie failed to be anything more than an overly long, self-indulgent piece by a director who wanted to see previously cut scenes from the 1933 version reintegrated into his own. The result is a film that clearly needed several scenes left on the cutting room floor, but were left because of the director's self-serving love for what was cut from the original film. At the same time, Jackson's irreverence for fantasy doesn't fit Kong. The idea that Kong could fight dinosaurs or monsters matches the character and its surroundings. Dumbing it down with "realism" and going as far to include "evolved" dinosaurs, just to visually imply how they survived, takes away from the unstated mystery of the 1933 film, Toho's Kong and even the 1976 version. Kong and realism are not meant for each other.
"For everyone complaining about Godzilla 2014 not having enough monster fights, that's exactly what made the movie so great."
The reason so many complain about the lack of monster battles in Godzilla '14 is because the characters were so severely lacking and the cutaways became redundant. I think it would have been noticed less had Ford been a more engaging character and the supporting players had more to them. But because the characters were weak audiences relied on the monster battles to engage them. The problem is there wasn't enough monster action to compensate for the lack of decent characters.
Skull Island also has problematic characters, albeit, more engaging. However, this time those shortcomings are compensated by monster action--Making Skull Island a little more honest and self-aware of itself.
Posted Mar-20-2017 8:20 PM
My 2 cents, or whatever it's worth today. I’m 1 for 3 with you. I too love the ’05 King Kong. Right behind the original in fact. That’s too bad you didn’t like Kong: Skull Island. I loved it. It was a frigging blast. I got to see Kong kick ass a few times, and the characters were decent. A couple I really liked. As a movie, it was a fun ride. It's my third favorite Kong movie, behind '33 and '05.
I don’t compare this to ’33 or ’05, or ’76, for that matter. Is he a giant gorilla? OK. Is he an ape-like creature walking on two legs? Ok to to that too. They’re all different, and they’re all King Kong to me. I have my favorites, but it's whatever you want him to be quite honestly; what's going to work for you. No one needs to tell you what King Kong is, or isn’t. Same with Godzilla. And speaking of…
As for Godzilla ’14, I’m glad you love it. I wish I did. It’s a well-made movie; I’ll give it that. The director is an excellent film-maker, but it is one of the dullest, big budget popcorn movies I’ve ever seen. Edwards does a great job of building suspense, and introducing the monsters, but then goes nowhere with it. He just leaves you hanging; there’s no payoff. Once you’ve seen it, it just doesn’t hold up to repeat viewings. There’s little to look forward to once you know what’s coming. In between the sparse Godzilla sightings, are some of the worst cardboard characters ever put on film. Such a missed opportunity.
Not sure if we were supposed to be rating these, but Kong '05, Kong:SI, then Godzilla '14.
Anyway, like I said, just my 2.
Posted Mar-26-2017 8:19 PM
I gotta say, I agree almost word-for-word with the first half of Gman's post. I didn't care for Kong in '05, personally, and his design didn't have that "unbelievable" quality to him. It was kinda just meh, for me. Like "Huh, that's literally just a giant Gorilla." To me, Kong is supposed to look like a guy in a suit. He's supposed to be an unconventional beast. I prefer him standing vertically, and think that's when he's at his best. I just re-watched the '05 Kong (a few days after my second viewing of Skull Island) and honestly, I was bored. Don't get me wrong, I love characterization and slow-burn stories, so that when things get intense, it really hits you, but there is a lot of terrible acting, dull dialogue, and general cliche in '05. Honestly, the only character I actually liked was Ann, I literally did not care if everyone else died. When I first watched that movie, back when I was 9 or so, I loved it, and re-watched it numerous times, and unlike many Godzilla movies, nostalgia was not enough to make me like it. I did like Kong's expressiveness in '05, and the island itself was definitely full of prehistoric horrors and nightmare fuel, but that's about it. I did quite enjoy the bug pit scene as well as the fight scene with the trio of V-Rexes, but overall, I feel SI was a better movie.
That being said, I really liked G14, and it was everything I could have asked for from a Godzilla movie.
Posted Mar-27-2017 4:47 AM
@SchizoidHorse9 - That's cool. I respect your opinion. I get the criticisms levied against Jackson's version. There are some things I would have done differently as well. The theatrical version should have been a tight 2 hour movie, tops. But I think overall it's a fantastic movie, and an incredible retelling of the classic story for a modern audience. It's amazing to me how divided fans can be about these movies. There are very, very few that everyone agrees upon. One of the few that I've seen predominantly good/great reviews for here is Pacific Rim, which, of the Legendary giant monster movies I've seen, is hands down my favorite. I could watch that movie once a week. It will probably have done the worst of the three box office-wise!
I enjoyed the hell out of Kong: SI. Very entertaining movie. I'm a huge Kong fan, so anything that comes out featuring him, I'm there for. I've seen it twice. It's gotten pretty good reviews and even better word of mouth. I think globally, when all is said and done, it should be a success for Legendary. I'm thrilled if for nothing more than to keep the ball rolling. If this or G2 dies on the vine, that puts the whole future of these movies in jeopardy, which I don't want to see happen.
Posted Mar-27-2017 5:18 AM
Well Kong killed it in China, so it's not looking bad for the next 2 legendary installments.
As for the 05 Kong I like it myself, but it's just too long and drawn out. I think it's like an hour in that they get to the island, and not a big fan of Adrien Brody's performance. I did like that it built of Kong's relation to Ann though, so the skull island segment of the movie for me was the highpoint.
Sign in to add a reply to this topic!