What the fuck was up with this movie?
A lot of the action was awesome. The way much of it was stylized and the overall aesthetic was very cool and pleasing. But holy shit the writing and pacing are just horrific. The actors are terribly utilized and Brie Larson is one of the worst actresses in a big budget film I've seen in a while. A lot of shit feels way too rushed and makes no sense.
How the fuck is it getting above average reviews?
People probably went into it with very low expectations.
That plus it has a pretty diverse cast.
I felt like I'd had a fucking lobotomy by the end of it
I feel like 30% of it was cut out. Just take the bar scene with Tom Hiddleston within the first 5 minutes of the movie. He's in a bar, randomly beats the shit out of some guys with a poolstick who were feuding with him for some reason, then immediately negotiates with John Goodman for 30 seconds, and then the scene ends. Feels like a huge amount of context is missing there.
spot on, chap, it was terrible in many many ways and Brie Larson was awful.
Would be a lot better from the Kong's POV
because giant ass monsters in full view
>cool special effects that they drained money on
>shitty meme writing
>untalented but "diverse" cast
Sounds like every single modern movie/tv show these days.
This. Why not have the movie follow Kong half the time? Build him as a character? They established his family dying to skullcrawlers. Throw in more action sequences, make him a bit more sympathetic, lessen the influence of your shitty human characters.
>he doesn't go in just for the monster
What a colossal retard.
Well see, the problem is when 90% of the movie doesn't follow the monster, and it also sucks cock, it's going to be criticized for it. It's fairly obvious if you're not a simpleton
I noticed this as well, all kong movies were bland and shitty compared to other kaiju movies. Only interesting thing about Kong were the other monsters on the island.
>i'll see any movie if it has 10 minutes of a big monster in it, its okay if the movie is total shit
King Kong is a shitty monster.
Off your fucking high horses. Just go in to see the dump monster flick for entertainment. Don't expect anything more.
That's no way to talk about your father.
>go in to see it for entertainment
>it's not entertaining
Not sure if you're getting the disconnect here...
Poor mans Godzilla.
>dosen't find monster action, brutal deaths, & 70s music entertaining
You must be a real drag to go to a theater with.
They'll both tag team on you & wreck your shit.
>finds bad acting, awkward, unfunny dialogue, and 5 minutes of passable CGI entertaining
I was into it when Kong threw the boat motor at the monster, which lasted about 20 seconds. Not worth the wait or money IMO
See, that's why you can't enjoy movies.
where even to begin?
>kong looked more like a jeager with fur, not like a monkey. pj actually did it right. no monkey walks like that.
>some photographer chick no one cared about kong started caring and had a bonding moment? why? do you care about ants?
>all humans were boring and no one gave a fuck
>kong has to fight gozilla when he gets dropped by some dude with a little napalm and some tnt charges?
>the big one wasnt big
>the world didnt feel threatening like in pjs kong. just some random shit happening
>natives were some boring communist robots. sounds about right.
>fights were meh in comparison to the t-rex fights in pj's kong
>the skullcrawlers looked like some indian mutant without legs
>it wasnt funny, but it tried to be
>some random guy surviving on the island for 40 years randomly cut in
>he cut something with a katana for no effect but it is shown as the big blow
pros:
>that fucking spider.
>that fucking stick insect
>monkey
Opinion discarded already. Only one greentext in & you've already made your bait clear.
it's a fucking monkey
It was basically a soulless version of a Zack Snyder movie.
No, it's an ape. Go watch Jay & Silent Bob & educate yourself..
no I will not because I dont care about your autism
>i'm right you're wrong i have autism
WEW
So, a Zack Snyder movie?
it's semantics. no one cares
Guess you failed biology.
Zack Snyder believes in what he's doing, I never for a second believed the Vietnam stuff in Kong. It just felt like he picked a subtext at random because the film needed one so critics could take it seriously.
monkey = der Affe
ape = der Affe
oh look there is no distinction. no one cares. you are a autistic
You've been replying so you obviously do. Anyway, getting tired of luring you hook, line, & sinker.' so I'll stop now.
>im not a moron, Im just baiting
I believe you
This movie took place in the 70s and Godzilla takes place in modern times so Kong has 50 years to get bigger.
I haven't seen it yet but at least it's only 2 hours unlike that monstrostiy from 2005 that was almost 3 and a half fucking hours long.
it's worth it if only for john c reilly
if you don't like him then don't bother
Especially since the last Kong movie proved that this was a winning bet to make anyway. Hell forget Kong, I cared more about lumpy in the last Kong movie than I did with most of the humans inn this movie. They should've just stuck with Jackson, Goodman, and Riley. Focusing solely on those as the film's human element would've helped further the theme of "never coming home from war" that they already mentioned a lot better than they managed to do, plus they wouldn't have been nearly as boring/annoying as the other actors we were forced to sit through
>I've never seen a quality example of something therefore it cannot exist
It's postmodern b movie. It's supposed to be reference all previous genera films and try to make something new out of it.
Why is "postmodern" the buzzword being thrown around for this movie all of a sudden? So many other movies do the exact same thing, I don't see anyone calling the prequels or TFA postmodern though. What gives?