Lucas

Damn it I was hoping to get something to do.

Has the embargo dropped already or is indiewire too early? http://www.indiewire.com/2017/03/review-power-rangers-movie-bryan-cranston-elizabeth-banks-ludi-lin-rj-cyler-becky-g-naomi-scott-1201794992/ Grade: C-

It's simple, I wrote a whole post about it :D.

I am indeed a big King Kong fan (although the only King Kong movie I think is great is the original while the others are deeply flawed). I can hardly say my review of this movie was harsh because I'm a King Kong fan though. My problems with the movie are with the filmmaking, not the way they treat the legacy of King Kong. It's not a terrible movie, but it's hard to believe that we still get movies with no characters in them. It's not that hard to at least have a basic arc for your leads but Kong: Skull Island doesn't even try. The movie just feels like a non-event and a lot of it won't be remembered. But maybe in 2033 I'll get that ultimate King Kong movie that gets everything right.

Obviously that's what's happening right now but they can't possibly keep it that way if it keeps getting more and more fresh reviews.

There's no way they'll actually break math just so they can take away its 100% score, that would be ridiculous.

It's sparking a discussion because it is still exactly the same.

So like all Transformers movies.

Just re-watched The Son of Kong, I had completely forgotten how much I enjoyed it. This is a strong sequel to the original film despite the severe downgrade in stop motion for the new Kong and the constant reminder of how rushed it must have been considering it came out literally the same year as the first. I really like Carl Denham in this as Robert Armstrong completely steals the show. What they do with his character is perfect for a sequel to King Kong and it really props the movie up. I'm saying all of this because Kong: Skull Island is worse than this one too and again, even in this rushed sequel - the characters are still strong and makes it work.

I'll have to say it was. Obviously every single person and their grandmothers know it's very flawed and share a lot of the same problems with Rogue One (not really surprising) and now Kong: Skull Island. The main difference between the two is Godzilla has a better grasp of setting the tension and building up to its climax and not blowing its wad too soon - with the downfall being what they decide to focus on in the build up is not interesting in the slightest. Actually to boil it all down; Godzilla has a fantastic score - Kong: Skull Island does not. Godzilla has at least Bryan Cranston's character for some of it - Kong: Skull Island doesn't even have that. Godzilla isn't that terribly edited - Kong: Skull Island is. Godzilla always looks great visually - Kong: Skull Island has some of the worst green screening I've seen in a while at times. As a whole, Godzilla is just a more memorable film despite it's major, major flaws. There's actually things you can talk about with that movie while this one will just disappear and be mostly forgotten if it weren't connected to this universe.

YEAAAAHOO! Fucking SUCK IT Armond White.

So many overexposed shots...

Finally saw it, and I've already forgotten pretty much everything about it. But here's what I do remember. One of my main pet-peeves in movies is things like camera movements/camera angles and other things being completely motivated by nothing - especially when it's a dialogue scene. In this movie characters are talking in a circle and the camera will for no reason move slowly in one direction because the filmmakers are not inventive enough to stage a scene like this in a clever and interesting way. Instead they just have the camera slowly move in different directions to make the shots seem more dynamic than they actually are. Same thing goes with unnecessary cuts because the filmmakers have no fucking clue how to actually pace a scene so they try to cut around it to keep the momentum going. Long live the directors who are actually talented enough with their craft to know what to do with scenes like this because sadly Jordan Vogt-Roberts is not one of them. And speaking of cuts, fuck me this editing. I don't remember being this off put by editing in a blockbuster (that I've seen) since Rogue One and this one tops it. It's messy. It either just kind of happens (again motivated by nothing) and the shots they cut to either confuse the audience or just annoy them because it could've easily been composited into one single good-looking shot instead of two bad ones. Everyone knows how bad the characters are and I really don't have anything else to add on that front. I don't remember any of their names and I don't care to find out. It's not like I even need to know since this movie is set in the 70's and the Kong vs Godzilla movie is most likely going to take place after Godzilla 2014 so I doubt any of them are returning for that. It really felt like Rogue One to me... weak editing, weak characters with no development of any kind, music being very forgettable, I have no clue what the hell the themes the movie was tackling or what they were trying to say with this movie, the first act is a mess, the second is just shenanigans and the third is the most memorable part of the movie and then it just kind of ends... but damn some visuals look really good. I don't particularly care to ever watch it again because I doubt I'd get anything out of it and I'd probably just be bored. Before this movie I re-watched three King Kong movies, 1933, 1976 and of course Peter Jackson's 2005 and I plan to re-watch the other ones like The Son of Kong, King Kong Escapes, King Kong vs Godzilla, King Kong Lives etc. so I can truly know where this new one ranks, but out of the three main ones... it's the weakest. Damn shame because I love King Kong. I love the story, I love the characters, I love the scope, and I love how it combines horror, action, adventure, romance, fantasy almost seamlessly... It could be made into a pitch perfect movie but in my opinion that movie has yet to be made. And now I don't even remember what movie I just watched...

And may I also add that I don't think you know what "anticipated" means if you think it's the same as "what movies you think are going to be good". I'm really looking forward to seeing something like Justice League... but I hardly think it's gonna be a good movie.

Obviously there's going to be worse movies, but why would they ever make any list of movies you're anticipating? Despicable Me 1 and 2 weren't terrible movies unlike Cars 1 and 2 so on that basis alone, yeah I'd rather see Despicable Me 3 even though I could not care less about it. Cars 3 being a Pixar movie alone means it'll mean a lot more for me and it would hurt a lot more to see them do the same shit again. Why would The Emoji Movie be on a list of movies you're anticipating? Why would The Nut Job 2 be on a list of movies you're anticipating?

This may be my least anticipated movie of the year. So at least it has that going for it.

So this is the thread I should be hanging out in.

This is so close to getting back to 100% on RT...

Alright I've postponed this film long enough, tomorrow I'll actually drag myself to the theater and watch it.

It's aaaaaalmost there.

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_disaster_artist_2016 http://www.metacritic.com/movie/the-disaster-artist

10/10 reviews on RT now, we'll see how long it'll keep its 100% . The average rating is still glorious at 8.8/10.

Another 5/5 review was added so the perfect average rating continues lols