Kong: Skull Island - Strong Ape! Puny Humans...

 

     So King Kong has returned to our screens with Kong: Skull Island from Legendary Pictures, as part of their new ‘Monsterverse’ franchise - tying in 2014’s reboot of Godzilla as well as the future releases of Gozilla: King of Monsters(due 2019) and Godzilla vs Kong (due 2020).

      For that reason, the comparison to the recent Godzilla movie is inevitable, as they are now part of a shared universe, not to mention being scheduled to duke it out one day.

     Whilst Godzilla the monster himself was notoriously camera shy in his 2014 feature (right up until the end of the film anyway), in Kong they have no problem in proudly displaying the titular ape – making an appearance in the first scene! Overall the tone is a bit more playful and less grounded in Kong than Godzilla – and seems to be having more fun with the more fantastical elements - though at times it does veer dangerously from comedy to faux-seriousness (dramatic slow-mo shots and extended scenes of staring competitions) almost too wantonly.

      It's interesting how these kinds of movies are usually split into two major components. The monster itself (obviously) but also the human element; in this case, a group of scientists and military personnel that go searching for the mythical ‘Skull Island’.

      So lets start with number one: Kong himself. His increase in size (to match-up to Godzilla a bit more) means that he is bigger than we’ve ever seen him before – which makes him all the more of a terrifying force for it. His first proper scene (with the military choppers) sees him wreak havoc to a level in which you think ‘ – damn they made him a proper villain in this one!’ (which admittedly would have been an interesting and different approach to take) – but then the inevitable goodness of Kong starts to filter through later; i.e. he’s misunderstood, he’s just protecting his territory, it’s ok because he’s actually defending us from other worse monsters etc… It's a narrative necessity really, so that’s fine. And once again, this mirrors Godzilla’s representation in his movie – at first as an unknown potential threat, but then later revealed to be the hero that the humans actually depend on.

      The best moments of the film are when we get to see Kong in action, especially when up against other giant beasties. The CG work is stellar here, with long takes and little to no hiding in the dark, heavy rain or thick smoke for the majority of the action. The fighting feels suitably weighty too, calling to mind the hulking Kaiju brawls of Guillermo Del Toro’s Pacific Rim.

      The period setting was also great - a fresh 70’s vibe that also allows for the legitimate use of a rock soundtrack from that era. Granted, it can feel like a bit of a pastiche at times but it allows the film to play fast and loose with some of its cheesiness, one further example of which being plenty of ‘overtly cinematic’ yet beautiful shots (like Kong etched against the setting sun surrounded by choppers in slow motion - homaging Apocalypse Now), which fits the mood and fantastical tone well.

      There are plenty of callbacks and easter eggs stuffed in there for Kong fans too. Brie Larson briefly acting as the Ann Darrow surrogate laying in Kong’s palm, the teased almost-snapping of a creature’s jaw, Kong fighting a giant octopus – it’s all familiar stuff but refreshingly bombastic and a hell of a lot of fun.

      Now to address the much weaker portion of the movie: the human component. First off, there are way too many characters. At one point they get split up on the island and there are three groups to keep track of at once. The assembled cast is amazing on paper, but the lack of development or fleshing out for most contributes greatly to their collective downfall. John Goodman – wasted. Toby Kebbel – wasted (reduced to a plot point). We get to see Eazy-E and Dr. Dre (Jason Mitchell and Corey Hawkins) from Straight Outta Compton re-united! One is a marine now, the other a science nerd – both seemingly there just to add comedy and not much else. Even worse – the Chinese casting (let me take a cynical guess – she is a famous actress/popstar in China and is there just to boost the film’s profile in the increasingly lucrative Asian market?) literally adds nothing to the film apart from vague hints at being a possible love interest for Dr. Dre.

 

     But by far the most squandered are the two supposed main ‘leads’. Brie Larson is given an almost thankless role – it’s amazing how many times the film cuts to her face just to get a reaction shot and not much else. This is an Oscar winning actress remember (see how easily she squeezes out that tear at the end!) It's a shame she isn’t given much to do at all, except point a camera at something once in a while. It's quite clear that they didnt want to make her just another damsel in distress or a love interest (which is commendable) but in lieu of that we are left with a largely blank slate.

     And Tom Hiddleston – oh dear. Ex-British Special Forces? Please. It feels quite awkward  how they tan him up, get him to walk around with his arms in an unnaturally wide position and frequently have him roll up his sleeves to show off a bit of bicep when he’s holding a rifle. Though he's never really suited to being an action star (horrendously miscast in this film in my opinion), it doesn't help that the character itself is paper thin and has nothing to do except the odd bit of running and shooting here and there. I can’t recall a time in recent memory that a supposed leading man or obvious ‘hero’ role in a movie has been so utterly ineffectual.

     It’s a bit of a stretch, but perhaps that was the whole point the filmmakers were trying to make – to show that the best we can muster from us humans pales into significance before the mighty majesty that is Kong! I doubt the writers were being that smart though.

      So the human characters were largely dissapointing in this (a similar criticism also levelled against the 2014 Godzilla movie). There are, however, two exceptions to this in Kong.

     Firstly, is John C Reilly. He’s actually given a character in this – the way he acts and things he says reflect his past and what he’s been through. He gets to be endearingly funny (not just a wise-cracking sidekick) and have a nice emotional pay-off at the end of it all.

      Secondly, Samuel L Jackson. Sure, he’s playing the badass that he routinely pulls off with ease in so many of the roles he takes days, but his character also has a fleshed out past and we get a view into his disturbed psyche - what gives him his purpose and motivation. There are plenty of references to the Vietnam War and how he feels that he still has unfinished business – a war out there that’s left unwon. Like one of the characters says: ‘people don't come back from war’.

     His first staring contest with Kong is suitably epic and marks the start of the gradual role switch between himself and Kong. What appears to be set up as the ‘Heroic warrior vs Villain’, gradually revealing itself to be in fact the opposite as the film progresses.

      With the notable exception of these two characters, the film often stumbles with its human cast – only really getting exciting when they are being assailed by the next giant monster to rear its head. When Kong himself is up on the screen the film really shines – and tends to suffer when he is not. So at least they got it half right (arguably the more important part?)

      All in all, Kong: Skull Island feels different from what’s come before – it’s a fun action romp (with some great set pieces and even the occasional jump scare!), and is especially great when we get to see the big ape doing his thing - so it’s interesting to see how exactly this is all going to mesh with the more serious feeling of Godzilla. Will it end up being an epic battle for the ages? Or a disappointing butting of heads much like last year’s Batman vs Superman: Dawn of Justice?

     I’ll guess we’ll have to wait and see.

20th March 2017

Read More

John Wick: Chapter 2 - Most Overrated Film of 2017 So Far?

 

     So everyone and their dog seems to be lapping up John Wick: Chapter 2 when it came out.

     Believe the hype! The best action movie of the century! etc etc…

     But I, for one, didn't think it was all that great. In fact, I ended up feeling pretty bored for a large portion of the movie. It was adequate, I guess – not a terrible film by any stretch, but I thought I would try and explain why I felt so underwhelmed.

      Firstly: a lack of stakes. Despite taking his fair share of knocks during the film, it seems John Wick is never really in any danger - even more so since he now sports a bulletproof suit (with which you see him occasionally use as a shield in some sort of hilarious Dracula impression). Enemies seem to just run into his line of fire, or wait patiently for their turn to engage him in hand to hand combat. Rarely does he meet someone who gives him a decent challenge, the only person coming close is Common’s character Cassian, who ends up being dispatched long before the climax of the movie.

      Secondly: a lack of motivation. The first John Wick film worked so well because the premise was so straightforward: A guy is wronged (his dog killed and his car stolen) and so spends the majority of the film enacting his revenge. It’s simple and effective. Chapter 2? Not so much. It goes more like this: someone asks him to do something for him, he refuses despite not asking what that particular thing is and knowing full well what the consequences of breaking said oath might be. So the guy makes good on his promise, blows up his house, John Wick agrees to work for him anyway(!?), does what the man asks him to do, ends up being betrayed anyway (obviously!), then spends most of the rest of the movie killing everyone else who is now trying to kill him.

      It’s needlessly daft and convoluted, most of it barely making sense when examined even in a cursory fashion. Why not go straight after the guy who blew his house up? (It would have been more in line with his mode of operation in the first movie). Why can’t he just disappear after he survives his house explosion (as he clearly wants out of the life of a killer and is now presumed dead)? Why does Lawrence Fishburne only give him 7 bullets (not that helpful) when clearly he has already made up his mind to help him and would benefit from him surviving in order to wipe out the competition and to owe him future favours? Why is Ruby Rose built up to be this awesome badass and yet we never see her fight anyone until the very end of the film (her fight with John Wick ends up being a disappointingly brief affair).

      It seems that the film is constantly putting style ahead of sense, with many ‘oh wouldn't this be cool if...?’ moments instead of any real substance.

      I’m not usually one to decry senseless violence (I have absolutely no problem with violence in movies, games, comics and what have you given it's given the right context), but it’s kind of worrying how a film in which you see a hundredth nameless bad guy get judo thrown and then shot in the head is still getting rave reviews all over the shop. I appreciate that there is too much in the way of watered down ‘action’ movies in recent times (as a lower rating means wider audience at the box office), but just because something is refreshingly violent doesn't mean it should be automatically considered good. There’s just not enough decent story or motivation behind it all. Besides, with the likes of Deadpool and Logan being critically and commercially successful, it seems a new wave of R-rated action films could be just around the corner.

      Just to re-iterate: I actually didn't mind the first John Wick film. It seems the second is trying to ape parts of it, without really understanding what made it work. For example: he has a dog in this one too, but only in a handful of scenes, and it spends most of the time being ‘looked after’ off-screen by another character. John Wick also goes to rescue his car (using another car that looks pretty similar in the opening of the film) but then proceeds to smash up said car in the process. The subtitles tailored for idiots also make an unwelcome return: (‘We MUSThighlight random words, and have them floating around different partsof the screen, so the audience doesn't GET bored with READing them’), is all I can think of when I see them.

      Even rent-a-baddie Peter Stormare collects an easy cheque in a cameo role that loosely ties back to events in the first film. Again, it seems he is just there to remind the audience of how ‘legendary’ the reputation of John Wick is and how he has been given the nickname of ‘Baba Yaga’ or ‘The Boogeyman’ because he is so frightening. And yet we never see anyone actually being frightened of him. EVER. Of the hundreds of cannon fodder enemies that rush him, not a single one ever hesitates for even a second.

      For all the talk of “oh – but this one expands on the mythos of the world of assassins so much more!”, there is precious little that is actually brought to light. In fact, so many more questions are raised instead. What is the significance of the coins exactly? Do all hits get paid in them? Why does a bulletproof suit cost a similar amount in coins as a single drink at the bar of the Continental? What benefit does Lawrence Fishburne have for disguising himself as a homeless man? Why does Winston have a soft spot for John Wick and bends the rules for him when he is so absolute with everyone else (note Perkin’s death in the first film)? Who runs the hitman agency that everyone is supposedly a part of and why do they use oldschool wire switchboards and exclusively employ hipster chicks?

      I have a nagging suspicion that much of this will just be answered by: ‘cos that’s friggin’ cool right?’, and be left at that.

      I hate being so negative about any film - but I feel I need to redress the balance and express my surprise at how much praise this film has been getting. And to be fair the film did have a few good moments (seeing John Wick finally dispatch some goons with a pencil, the confrontation with Gianna, the extended tussle with Cassian, Peter Serafinowicz!)…. We need more of these kind of scenes – there is only so much shooting yet another nameless henchman in the head you can take before it starts to get mind-numbingly repetitive.

      Props to Keanu though, he is over 50 now and his stunt work and physical dedication in this is incredible. Although he has seemed to fully embrace the character, I can’t help but feel he was given the opportunity to show a lot more range and emotion in the first film.

      So I didn’t hate John Wick: Chapter 2, but didn't like it all that much either. It’s a case of too much style without the substance to match. Shouldn't we be demanding more in terms of character, meaningful action, motivation and story to go along with it all?

10th March 2017

Read More

The Lego Batman Movie – Is It Better Than The Lego Movie?

     So The LEGO Batman Movie is pretty good. Really good, in fact. I’ve gone to watch it twice in IMAX 3D – besides the obvious addition of the great sound and picture quality that the IMAX experience offers, the physicality of the LEGO world and all its elements lend itself perfectly to 3D viewing.

      But is it better than The LEGO Movie?

      In a word, no. The Lego Movie is still slightly stronger than The LEGO Batman Movie, but we’ll get into those precise reasons later.

      Let’s first look at some similarities. Both go in unexpected narrative directions (not just extended toy commercials with simplistic ‘good vs evil’ plots as you might expect); both feature surprisingly mature themes beneath the colourful and child-friendly exterior (in a fashion not too dissimilar from Disney’s recent output); and both showcase a diverse range of humour (including jokes that are broad, ‘adult’ jokes for the parentals to enjoy, in-jokes for LEGO fans – as well as a ton of content for fans of Batman too).

      Particularly in regards to the last point – it seems the more you know about The Dark Knight, the more you will be tickled.  A lot of the humour comes from poking fun at the various iterations of the Batman universe over the years: the costumes, the personalities, the colourful villains (yep - they are all real, even the more outlandish ones!), and so on. Despite being regarded by some (including myself) as being THE BEST SUPERHERO EVER (‘Batman beats everyone’ - so the mantra goes), it's undeniable that he has also had his fair share of laughable moments throughout the ages; and the constant knowing winks that the film repeatedly throws out to the fans is one of its great joys.

      And maybe that’s part of why we love the character of Batman so much. Although there have been many interpretations of the character over the years that have been wildly different (even more so if you include the 'Elseworlds' comics versions) – deep down the fundamental core remains the same. And that’s why the film works so well. Despite all the flashy action scenes and myriad of jokes flying off the screen, the filmmakers really know what the core of Batman is – and this cleverly makes up the narrative thrust of the plot as well as occupy much of the themes that run through it.

      This particular iteration of the character in The LEGO Batman Movie may be the narcissistic-loner-asshole version of Batman (amped up to a ridiculous degree) that likes to think he is nigh on invulnerable in the fray – but the core of the character is still consistent – that is: a man who has lost loved ones in tragic circumstances and has the purpose and meaning of his whole life changed drastically as a result of it. Although this iteration of Batman doesn't cover his origin story (it’s a blessing that we don't have to sit through yet another version of his parent’s murder again), we see why he is so afraid to let others get close to him or to have a family of his own – in case he loses them too.

      And the film plays wonderfully with that. In fact, the main theme of the movie embodies that sentiment wholly: although you may be afraid of losing others, trust, love and understanding how we are all connected is what gives us purpose and meaning in life. Even when it comes down Batman’s bromance with The Joker (again, something that was unexpected in this movie but actually does play a significant part in a vast number of other Batman stories); and also leading up to the film’s climax, the message is clear: we are all co-dependent with each other on some level. No-one has to go it alone. And that’s a beautiful sentiment.

      Now The LEGO Movie’s message about creativity and celebrating individuality (whilst simultaneously busting the traditional story myth that only a few ‘chosen ones’ are destined to be ‘special’), is a bit more universal to the human experience – not forgetting the meta-ness of this theme simultaneously describing and being illustrated through the use of LEGO as a toy (or “highly sophisticated interlocking brick system” – whatever…).

      It’s a bit more inspired and moving than Batman’s overall theme. That’s not to say Batmandoesn't have the occasional tear jerking moments: watching The Joker’s face dropping when Batman lays it out for him (‘You mean NOTHING to me…’), as well as a moment when he helplessly watches a dear friend slip out of his grasp to certain doom. These parts move you, in spite of the childish trappings that these sorts of animated features are often associated with.

      Admittedly though, at end of the day – the ‘LEGO’ part of this Batman just adds to the overall charm of the film, and it’s not 100% integral to the movie as a whole. With a bit of re-jigging of the certain story elements, this could have been told in any kind of medium, yet The LEGO Movie could not exist without being done in LEGO. I realize that when laid out so bluntly it sounds obvious - but this just illustrates how much the plot and themes of The LEGO Movie are inseparable from the very fabric of LEGO and what it means in terms of its design and potential.

     And that’s why I think The LEGO Movie is overall a better movie. Let’s also not forget that it featured great original characters and ideas – whereas Batman has a bit of an easier time in this regard as it uses pre-existing characters and our pre-conceived notions of them (also often played against expectations to great effect).

      Still, The LEGO Batman Movie is an excellent film. I had my expectations in check before I went to see it; as it is a spin-off to The LEGO Movie (which I’ve written about HERE), I was worried it wouldn't be anywhere near as good. But it certainly delivers – doubly so if you are a fan of Batman.

27th Feb 2017

Read More