Wow, I'm a real harsh critic of movies, especially super hero ones, but Logan was really good. It might sound ridiculous with a movie involving mutants, super healing factors, metal claws and bionic limbs, but it was the most grounded comic book film since Dark Knigh, which is my favorite movie of the genre. Now everyone go crazy for the sequel to a really poorly written, corny, plot hole ridden, huge fan favorite.
With the first, what kind of movie were you expecting? Not even considering that only about 5% of sequels are as good, much less better.
I enjoyed john wick 2. I thought the movie was equally as good and entertaining as the first one. And i definitely agreed the sequel was more of a set up to a third. But thats fine. The 3rd one gonna be really crazy
I had some time to waste today so I went to see it. I thought Get Out as fantastic! It was really really well crafted to me. I was expecting a cheap exploitation of all the racial tension going on right now, but I was surprised Get Out was so good. There wasn't an ounce of fat to the movie an I thought the writing, directing and dialogue was great. My favorite part of the movie was: Spoiler: Big spoilers When Chris asked why they used Black people, the answer was basically... I also like that Rose was wearing the stereotypical big game hunters outfit at the end when she had the riffle. The silent auction was great, as well as the hint of the black woman lifting up her wig looking at the mirror in the house. The friend with the whole TSA angle was funny too
Kong: Skull Island: C. If you want a giant ape destroying stuff, you got it. A decent popcorn flick, but boy the writing is dreadful and the acting is really bad. Stinks because it's a pretty good cast just completely wasted.
I watched it. I don't think the acting was necessarily bad, I think the writing for them was so shallow, they had no where to pull from. Like Samuel L. Jackson's character...he acted the part fine, but his character was such an unbelievable idiot, it made him look bad.
The writing was absolutely the main issue, but when you give actors of that caliber nothing to work with, they give you nothing. I thought everyone was far below their standards besides John C. Reilly who was hilarious.
Kong was poorly written but excellently directed. I didn't mind the shallow characters because the action and CGI was that good. Overall I was just very entertained and it would have probably been worth it exclusively for the hype I felt during the post-credits scene.
I didn't the direction was great at all. The tone of the movie was a huge struggle. It never really established the correct amount of drama so it turns into just a comedy action movie the minute John C. Reilly shows up. Now, he's awesome and funny, but any sort of seriousness is completely lost after he comes in. All in all, I thought it was fun. I'm not trying to bash it. If you want to go eat some popcorn and watch a giant ape, it's perfectly fine.
From all the reviews I've read that seems to be what they were going for. Godzilla bored me to death personally, and many people complained about how little he was in the movie, so it seemed they tried to fix that with Kong.
Yeah I can see that. Basically the moment Kong shows up, it's nonstop action. Even.moments that don't need action get action anyway.
Good movie. Emily Blunt standout role. Did not even recognize Luke Evans. Hitchcock storyline meets Tarantino editing. Grade: B.
I read the book and saw the movie. I'm not sure what the hype is about either one. Both were very forgettable. I do like Emily Blunt though.
