Tag Archives: Movie Review

Dunkirk

Leaving the cinema after watching Dunkirk, I was compelled to write this piece; to write about the importance of what Christopher Nolan has created.

To know Europe, you must understand The Second World War. My parents grew up in the 1960’s playing in bombsites: open wounds across Liverpool even 20 years on. Joy Division and New Order took their names from Nazi projects. My father sometimes recalls neighbours who were veterans of the World Wars, men who left legs behind on a beach during D-Day and others whose minds cracked like china under the strain of trench warfare in France and Belgium. Travelling across Europe for the first time at 19, the Nazis haunted every nation I visited, from Anne Frank’s safe-house in Amsterdam to the crumbling ruins of the Warsaw Ghetto. The First World War razed the old Europe, but the pain of the Second World War forged the new.

Since the Ancient Greeks first told myths, the past has been the anchor which moors identity in a sea of clashing collectives. Across Europe, our anchor is weakening as the Second World War ebbs away from living memory onto the shores of textbooks and academia. The train from Birmingham back home stops at a particular station.  Built into the station wall is a memorial to the men from the Railway line who fought and died in both World Wars. The names of the dead stack up to the ceiling, but no one stops to read them.

Dunkirk is a gift to the future, a grain of bottled time giving meaning back to the marble names that dwell in railway stations, parks, monuments, and statues across Europe. When watching Dunkirk we can live in that unfiltered speck of memory. We can experience a time of survival where there is no good or evil, only the enemy who is everywhere yet nowhere, toying with the British as they scrabble for their lives while bombs fall, snipers fire, and submarines sink hospital boats. When death comes, there is no quiet reflection or glory, it is quick and uncaring. Pilots simply disappear and soldiers, flung into the air by Stukha bombers, with their Jericho horns deafening all,  never return to ground. The characters utter little dialogue as few words are needed: the story speaks through Hans Zimmer’s score and Nolan’s vision.  The tale of Dunkirk told in words of sight and sound, is hope in the face of horror. It is the ringing notes of stoicism, the images of heroism, of ships silently sailing to shore and pilots sacrificing themselves which kindled hope for the men trapped ashore, caught between the ocean and the German tide. Hope saved our men, hope saved us.

When the civilian boats quietly prevail and reach Dunkirk’s shores, Zimmer’s rendition of Elgar blares as red sails flutter in the cold Atlantic wind. I was moved. I felt proud  of my country. In a present where Britain seems lost inside itself, we needed the pride Dunkirk brings to remind ourselves of a moment when we stood alone, and vowed to return to our European brothers once more.

Hopefully we will return to Europe again one day.

Hagood’s review of the Dunkirk will be available soon.

By Saul Shimmin

 

 

Star Wars: The Last Jedi [Behind the Scenes Trailer]

Today, July 15, in its measured roll-out in anticipation of The Last Jedi‘s December release, Disney delivered its second “trailer” for the film. While it is not a real trailer, the short video reveals just under three minutes of riveting tid-bits. We’ll discuss some key aspects of it below, but first, here is the trailer:

Key aspects:

  1. During their interviews, Daisy Ridley and Mark Hamill hint that The Last Jedi will depart from the Star Wars norm. I, and I’m sure many other fans, would welcome such a departure after The Force Awakens highly derivative plot.
  2. In a brief clip, Kylo Ren appears in front of an elevator and walkway that looks incredibly similar to The Emperor’s throne room in Return of the Jedi. Maybe we will meet Snoke here, face-to-face. But once again, I hope this does not indicated that Rian Johnson is ripping off the earlier films like J. J. Abrams and Lawrence Kasdan did with Awakens.
  3. Who are the Stormtroopers with the black, First Order emblem emblazoned on their arms and wielding weird claw weapons?
  4. This video is laden with intriguing creatures and characters. I hope they mean that multiple, rich and well-thought out planets will fill The Last Jedi, unlike the two, rather boring planets from The Force Awakens.
  5. I’m extremely excited to meet Laura Dern and Benicio del Toro’s characters who we see for a few seconds in the trailer. The only thing I know about del Toro’s character is that people call him DJ. I also know he was a bad ass in Sicario so hopefully his savageness will carry over.
  6. We see Finn exiting his bacta tank so he is obviously alive and Kylo doesn’t appear too badly injured from the slash Rey dealt him at the end of Awakens. Also, who are the two young gentle sparring with him? Possibly, Luke’s padawans that Kylo and the Knights of Ren massacred? Rey seems to also have some sword fighting ahead.

Sorry if I criticiseThe Force Awakens too much here, but after each viewing, I dislike it more and more. Its dialogue failed to fit into the Star Wars universe, its world building seemed lazy, and, as I mentioned earlier, its plot relied way too heavily on A New Hope‘s.

I have high hopes for this installment, in no small part to Rian Johnson.I hope his skill at film making remains iconic and deft in this endeavor into the Star Wars universe.

Spider-Man Homecoming

Movie Score4 out of 5 (Excellent)

Cast: Tom Holland, Michael Keaton, Robert Downey Jr., Marisa Tomei, Jon Favreau, Donald Glover, Zendaya, Jacob Batalon, Hannibal Buress, Laura Harrier, & Tony Revolori

Director: Jon Watts

Synopsis: The mutated spider has already bit Peter Parker and transformed him into Spider-Man. The movie commences a few months after Spidey disarmed Captain America. While technically part of the Avengers, Peter has to remain in Queens, fighting petty criminals because Tony Stark’s (Robert Downey Jr.) commanded him to lay low and be “a friendly, neighborhood Spider-Man.”  Frustrated with such limitations, Peter sets off to fight “serious crime” in order to prove his worth as an Avenger to Tony and his assistant, Happy Hogan (Jon Favreau). On this quest, Peter discovers Adrian Toomes/The Vulture/Birdman (Michael Keaton), a former construction contractor, who is now scavenging and selling alien weaponry from The Avengers invasion on the black market. After seeing the destruction such weapons are capable of, Peter sets out to defeat The Vulture whilst balancing a normal high school life. A great movie ensues.

Heading into the movie, I felt disappointed. A week early, I had read a review that stated Spider-Man Homecoming was purely a franchise building machine with only small moments of humor and few redeeming qualities. Ladies and gentlemen, friends, families, and readers, let me be the first and hopefully not the last to tell you the aforementioned review was wrong.

The movie’s teenage characters were my favorite part (besides the villain Toomes). Tom Holland phenomenally portrayed Peter Parker. I’m so glad he did not try to emulate Toby Maguire’s sniveling, wimpy version of Peter. Instead, Holland imbues Peter with humorous and nerdy, yet subtly cool, qualities. Together with Jacob Batalon’s hilarious character, Ned, the two form a wonderful duo who made me laugh a lot more than I expected. Normally, six screenwriters on one film signals trouble, but in this one the writers created and gave Ned and Peter some fantastic quips. However, they didn’t hoard all the best lines for the main characters. Zendaya’s hipster Michelle several great lines. I wish they had also decided to make Michelle a more prominent character since she stole all her scenes.

Like Zendaya, Keaton, of course, killed all his scenes. However, what made me love his character and the movie was not just his quality acting. It was also his character and his motives. Toomes began the movie as just an honest construction worker trying to take advantage of a good business opportunity: governmental contracts to help rebuild a destroyed New York City after the Chitauri army wrecks it in The Avengers. However, after losing the contract when the government discovers the power of the Chitauri weapons and asserts control over the reconstruction. This move leaves Toomes in a precarious position as he took out large loans to gather the men and equipment needed to take on such a job. Therefore, in order to support his family and his men’s families, he starts finding, fixing, and selling the alien weaponry on the black market.

I enjoyed Toomes because he was not a master villain trying to take over the world à la Loki. Instead, he was just a man doing whatever it takes to make ends meet and live the American dream. In an interesting conversation with Peter, Toomes asks him, what’s the difference between what he does and Tony Stark selling arms to the armies of the world. Such a question enters a fantastic grey area that Marvel likes to venture into and have successfully done so far like in The Winter Soldier and Civil War.  The question stumps Peter and it stumped me.

Target Audience: Teenagers, Marvel/DC/Disney lovers, and middle age adults. I’m counting out people over 50 based on my dad’s groans when he saw the trailer and children because the Vulture can, at times, be fearsome.

For trailer, see below.

By Hagood Grantham

My Life As A Courgette/My Life As A Zucchini

Movie Score: 4 out of 5 (Excellent, definitely one to watch)

Director: Claude Barras

Synopsis: In the wake of tragedy, Icare (Courgette) is placed in an orphanage, leading to an uplifting tale that highlights the enduring innocence and resilience of children. Despite the beautiful childlike designs and the brilliant voice acting for the children, this is a film for adults, not children.

My Life As A Courgette is an unfiltered account of the adult world seen from the eyes of kids. The film bravely examines the effects of addiction, crime, and abuse, addressing them through the children at the orphanage as they each slowly reveal the reason why they are alone in the world. By discussing these issues from the children’s point of view, My Life As A Courgette exudes an infectious optimism adding to the emotional weight of the film’s uplifting ending.

The disproportionate and minimalist design of the clay characters alongside the exceptional voice acting from the predominantly young cast places you within the orphanage. The voice actors deliver great performances, enhanced by the way their lines have been recorded. The sound design has a distanced quality to it, making the children’s lines sound like a candid recording of the orphans as they embark on trials and adventures, adding to the film’s realism.

The voice acting and simplistic artistic style has the warmth of an Aardman animation. Also, the movie’s writers riddled the plot full of adult jokes told by the children, which adds to their hilarity as they discuss sex and other adult themes. You will definitely find yourself cackling at questions about exploding willies.

It is hard to not love the children who inhabit the orphanage, even the initial bully, Simon. We witness their vulnerability as they expose their emotional and mental wounds once Courgette and his love-interest Camille enter the orphanage. Both characters open up about their pasts, letting the other orphans discuss their own pain. Together the children overcome their abandonment and isolation, making it even sadder to leave them behind when this brief film ends.

The film’s only flaw is that the plot does slightly drag, but otherwise My Life As A Courgette is a gem which art house and animation fans must watch.

A dubbed version is available, but I recommend the french language version with subtitles.

By Saul Shimmin

For the trailer, see below:

 

Paris Can Wait

Movie Score: 0 out of 5 (Horrible, avoid at all costs)

Cast: Diane Lane, Arnaud Viard, & Alec Baldwin

Writer & Director: Eleanor Coppola

Synopsis: Anne Lockwood (Diane Lane) is the wife of busy movie producer Michael Lockwood (Alec Baldwin). The couple are at the Cannes film festival and have to travel to Budapest for Michael’s work. Anne suffers from ear-ache and decides to meet her husband on the next leg of their trip in Paris. Michael’s partner, Jaques, offers to drive Anne to Paris and she accepts. The pair depart from Cannes, but fail to reach Paris as speedily as Anne desires because Jaques takes her on multiple side trips to his favorite restaurants and villages.

Paris Can Wait reveals that greatness in filmmaking is a non-transferable asset through marriage. Eleanor Coppola (wife of Francis Ford Coppola) failed in her endeavor to emulate the romantic magic of a Nancy Meyers’ film. She set herself up well with a romantic destination (small villages in rural France), the possibility of an unhappy marriage, and a doting goof to woo the leading lady’s heart (Jaques). Despite selecting the correct trappings of the genre, Coppola fails to correctly execute the motifs.

For example, normally in a love triangle, the female lead is unhappy in her relationship because her husband/partner neglects her. Once she meets the hero, he wins her heart through acts of kindness, humor, and sex appeal. However, only one of these things occurs in Paris. Michael Lockwood ignores Anne at the beginning of the movie. However, he does not mistreat her to the extent that would justify to the audience her leaving him. Michael’s greatest sins occur when he overlooks the fact that Anne’s ear hurts and takes a phone call when she is talking to him. True, such behavior is a little rude, but after the first ten minutes, Michael ends all such negative conduct. Even though he’s in Budapest on business, he calls her several times in two days, asking about how her ear feels and her trip with Jaques thus appearing like a caring husband. If Coppola wanted the audience to root for Anne to leave Michael for Jaques then she needed to make Michael more unlikeable.

However, the worst part of the film is not Michael as a “bad” husband, but Jaques as the film’s “hero.” Jaques lacks charm, looks, and tact. Really, he is just a creep. During a ride through the countryside the couple suffered from one of many uncomfortable silence. Anne tries to break it by playing the beloved car game, I Spy. She says, “I spy something with four legs.” They had just passed a herd of cows, so obviously she meant cows. In response, Jaques puts her hand on Anne’s leg, and as she tenses, he says, “I spy something with two lovely legs.” She tries to laugh it off, but I could only cringe as Anne had no where to run and no one to save her. Sadly, the creepiness doesn’t end there. During one meal, early on in the movie, while talking about Michael and his busy production schedule, he asks Anne, “Are you happy?” Flustered, she cannot answer because he blurts out, “Is your husband faithful?” These two characters do not know each other well besides Jaques’ business partnership with Michael , so this question is horribly inappropriate. Later in that same meal, he continually refills her wine glass. His intentions become so obvious that Anne even asks, “Are you trying to get me drunk?” Jacques just shrugs his shoulders, offering no verbal answer which connotes a silent “yes.” People should boycott this movie for this scene alone.

To add to the pile of garbage that is Jaques, throughout the movie he fails to pay for their five-star meals, stating that he lost his credit card. While he does repay her at the end of the movie, he continues to take her to fancy restaurants while making her pay for them.

The restaurant ordeal brings me to my final point: Anne had no agency. Wherever Jacques wanted to go, she had to acquiesce to his desires. He had the car, he spoke the country’s language, and knew his way around. Anne possessed none of these things. After accepting his offer to drive her to Paris, Anne made no decisions for the next half of the movie. In fact, she continually implores him, “Please, no more stops till Paris.” Yet Jaques continues to stop since “Paris can wait” even though Anne just wants to get to Paris. In most romance movies, the lead has the ability to choose between her man and the hero. Coppola affords Anne no such choice.

The final nail in this movie’s coffin occurred at the end. When the two say their goodbyes, Jaques turns to her and tells her, “I made a bet with myself… that I would not make an advance on you.” I laughed out loud. Throughout the movie, every time they were in the same room, he made advances on her and most of them unwanted. During the last fifteen minutes, Anne magically starts taking control and looking fondly upon our fat and tactless French hero. The audience is supposed to believe that Anne turned a corner and started to “stop and smell the roses” (her favorite flower). But I believe Coppola must have reread her script and realized Jacques was a goon and she gave Anne no agency so she tried to rectify it. However, her late alterations made the movie more fake than romantic. You can hear the movie’s falseness in Anne’s laugh. She filled it with empty the “ha-ha” that we give someone who is telling us a factoid that we don’t give a damn about.

Do yourself a favor and go see Wonder Woman instead of this pile of shite. For trailer, see below.

Target Audience: Old people with nothing better to do than waste 90 minutes on a stormy afternoon.

By Hagood Grantham

 

Free Fire

Movie Score: 4 out of 5 (Excellent)

Director: Ben Wheatley

Executive producer: Martin Scorsese

Cast: Arnie Hammer, Ben Wheatley, Brie Larson, Cillian Murphy, Michael Smiley, Noah Taylor, & Sharlto Copley

Free Fire is one long Mexican stand-off between gun smugglers and I.R.A. members after a deal goes south. Trapped together in the confines of a disused factory upon the dilapidated waterfront of 1970’s Boston, Free Fire is a more refined version of Reservoir Dogs. Laced with humour, especially from South African gun smuggler Vernon (Sharlto Copley), Free Fire is a refreshing romp that other action films could learn from. Ben Wheatley delivers a brilliant action film which does not attempt to be overly serious or complex.

By sporting such a large cast including well-known and recognisable actors, Free Fire risked becoming filled with half-developed characters acting as padding for the plot. Yet Free Fire’s setting of a locked room is the film’s biggest strength. It focuses our attention towards the battle to survive, leaving only a few brief pauses where we learn about the many characters through interactions and scraps of dialogue. Given the backdrop, the characters feel real as they squabble, try to outsmart their opponents, or simply survive.

Having been a fan of Ben Wheatley since A Field in England, it seems that pitting characters in a closed environment is becoming one of Wheatley’s tropes.

The action stands out in Free Fire. Instead of being a slick set of choreographed scenes, characters fire haphazardly and nervously as they scramble for cover, while bullets ricochet off the walls. No one is smoothly despatched in the film. Every character suffers injury upon injury which adds to the film’s dark humour. Nor is the film purely focused around the action. Subplots of romance, betrayal and rivalry quickly emerge between characters before and in between the shooting.

The cast all deliver great performances, but Sharlto Copley, as bumbling and arrogant South African gun runner Vernon, steals the show. Arnie Hammer (Ord) was a suprising favourite due to his rivalry with hardened IRA member Frank (Michael Smiley). Although Free Fire is an action-comedy which has no main character, there is no competition between the cast to be the comic relief, as each character has their own moment to shine.

There are a few moments near the end, where Free Fire‘s pace begins to falter, but otherwise this an enjoyable film.

Free Fire is a great film that you should go see while it is in the cinema.

By Saul Shimmin

For the trailer, see below:

Life

Life is another addition to the sci-fi, creature feature/suspense category. The film begins with with a team aboard the International Space Station waiting to receive a probe carrying sediment samples from Mars. The team soon discovers that the samples carry a dormant, single-cell life form, the first life to be discovered outside of Earth. After introducing the cell to different environments, the team’s lead scientist, Hugh (Ariyon Bakare) awakens the cell and begins to nurture it. After accidentally frightening the alien, known as Calvin, enters survival mode and death ensues.

Movie Score: 2.5 out of 5 (Average) 

 

–Spoilers Ahead–

While Life‘s special effects were breathtaking and often horrifying, I believe the movie’s screenwriters Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick (the duo behind the fantastic films Zombieland and Deadpool) missed an opportunity to delve deeper into the dark recesses of humanity. They touched upon certain aspects of our existence: humans feelings of hatred, procreation, love, and unquestioning duty to protect one another. They even rationalized Calvin’s quest to massacre the crew as a survival-of-the-fittest reaction. However, they failed to appropriately address the humans’ survival instinct, leaving a rich topic untouched.

The writers’ first mistake was failing to provide themselves with the right characters to correctly portray life and enter the complex waters of humans’ animalistic survival-instincts. The International Space Station’s crew consisted of a bunch of overly rational, “good people.” CDC doctor, Miranda North (Rebecca Ferguson), who lived and died by her adherence to the code of her employer, pilot-come-physician, David Jordan (Jake Gyllenhaal) who wanted to remain on the ISS and away from Earth, Sho Muraki (Hiroyuki Sananda) who’s wife just had a baby (that’s all we learn about Sho), the scientist Hugh Darry who loved other creatures (he was a good guy with an optimistic outlook despite being a paraplegic), the Russian who was kind, Ekaterina Golovkina (Olga Dihovichnaya), and Ryan Reynolds’ character Rory Adams who mostly acted like Ryan Reynolds. The writers created no gray characters, people who were willing to put their survival before their crew-mates. I realize there might be one or two “good” people on a crew of six, but lacking at least one selfish guy/gal, who is willing to sacrifice others to escape Calvin, is not only unrealistic, but boring.

Despite eventually realizing they needed to kill Calvin to survive, the crew always seemed to do so without any ethical conundrums. The closest the astronauts came to a dilemma occurred when Calvin first turned hostile in the lab. Despite some self-sacrifices by members of the crew to save the others, I never believed their acts of “love.” Their uniform kindness made them unbelievable as characters because humans are not so pure. We are sinful creatures at heart.

The writers should have created a greedy, evil, sinful character to match Calvin’s ferocity, to overturn all the “goodness” and “humanity” on the International Space Station. For a moment, I thought Sho was going to be that character, but the script never clarified if his attempt to reach the lifeboat was an act of selfishness or stupidity.

In sum,  Life failed to showcase humanity’s darkside, the side that executed the Holocaust, the side that commits terrorism on a daily basis, the side that massacred Native Americans at Wounded Knee. Instead, every crew member lived by their code, played nice, and died nice.

This is not to say the movie didn’t have its moments. In actuality, I enjoyed many parts of the film. I truly relished how Reese and Wernick overturned many of the monster genre’s conventions. For example, they didn’t allow the crew’s minority members to die first. Though the movie’s finish wasn’t unexpected, they managed to add a pleasant twist and resist the happy ending trope. Also, some of the crew’s deaths were quite imaginative, and I dug seeing Calvin’s motivation for murder (survival) grow .

By Hagood Grantham

For the trailer, see below:

Atomic Blonde (2017) – Teaser

Outlook: Most promising trailer of 2017 (so far)

Director: David Leitch

Cast: Charlize Theron, James McAvoy, John Goodman, Toby Jones, & Eddie Marsan

Atomic Blonde‘s opening fight scene harkens back to the early Bourne movies mixed with the bloody violence of John Wick. Its cinematography blends Zach Snyder’s pre-D.C. movies (Watchmen300Sucker Punch) with the stark quality of Bourne. I’m quite excited for this film because it appears to have a sense-of-self unlike many run of the mill spy/action movies.

The most negative aspect of the trailers is its plot, which appears to be a product of the trite lovers-revenge formula, which would normally be a bummer. However, its intense action and sex, coupled with the possibility of some good, dry British humor make me hopeful. I also enjoyed the neon signage that is reminiscent of Nicolas Winding Refn’s Drive and Neon Demon. Leitch put together a stellar cast that, by itself, does not guarantee success, but it does increase my desire to see it.

The largest unknown for Atomic Blonde is its director. Leitch only has an “uncredited” direction credit for John Wick. His career has  so far largely centered in stunt work where he has been a stunt-man, stunt-coordinator, and action choreographer for 82 titles in movies, TV shows, and video games. His only upcoming title is Deadpool 2, which means Fox has a ton of faith in him to put him at the helm of such a large cash-cow.

I’m choosing to side with Fox & Universal and believe that Leitch’s prodigious stunt experience will produce a quality action flick.

For trailer, see below.

By Hagood Grantham

Geostorm (2017) – Teaser

Outlook: Utter garbage

Director: Dean Devlin

Cast: Gerard Butler, Abbie Cornish, Ed Harris, & Andy Garcia

Hollywood must need a payday. Geostorm delivers our yearly disaster-movie that copies, almost frame for frame, the 2004 disaster film, Day After Tomorrow. The only alteration to its story is its storms’ origin. Day After Tomorrow‘s storms were a result of climate change, whereas Geostorm‘s occur due to a malfunctioning weather machine. Everything else appears unchanged.

Dean Devlin wrote and directs the movie. Devlin is a disaster film veteran, but this trailer reveals that he has learned little from his long career. His writing and production credits include Independence Day, Godzilla (’98)and 2016’s pitiful Independence Day: Resurgence. His filmography has been on a downward trajectory and I would wager Geostorm will continue this trend.

I reckon with Warner Bros. struggles with the subpar results from its D.C. properites, they’re looking for a sure payoff, but this movie will not be it. Its only solid star is Ed Harris and I doubt his name will connect with Geostorm‘s target audience: teenagers.

The movie’s CGI is beautiful, a prerequisite for a disaster film, so the movie might breakeven. The trailer does its job showing the correct amount of stern expressions, massive storms, and impending death, but I just can’t get past its hackneyed story elements that line up with Day After Tomorrow‘s plot: The tornadoes are identical to the ones that ravage LA and the tidal wave that appears at the end of the trailer is indistinguishable from the one that floods NYC.

The movie is due out in October 20, 2017. I will be seeing something else that day.

Kong: Skull Island (2017) – Teaser/IMAX Poster

kong-imax

Outlook: Skeptical

I’m not gonna lie. The images for this film are stunning. Google “Kong: Skull Island Posters” and you’ll find a trove of majestic photos that exude a distinctly retro/comic-book vibe. By the way, I’m a huge fan of Legendary Pictures, Brie Larson, Tom Hiddleston, Samuel L. Jackson, John Goodman, and John C. Reilly and most of them are coming off successful projects: Larson (RoomTrainwreck), Hiddleston (The Night Manager), Goodman (10 Cloverfield Lane), and Reilly (The Lobster). On the surface, this film appears ready to knock critics’ socks off and rule the box-office.

However, the movie’s director, Jordan Vogt-Roberts, is largely untested. He has only one movie under his belt, the indie-coming-of-age comedy Kings of Summer. I have yet to see this movie, but the plot looked promising and it’s currently rocking a solid 76% on RottenTomatoes.com. Nevertheless, it’s an indie-film with a budget of probably no more than $15 million. Kong, on the other hand, enjoys a budget that RottenTomatoes estimates to be about $190 million. It also boasts a studded cast that I’m sure had big and possibly unwieldy personalities, not to mention monumental special effects that such a monster-blockbuster requires. That’s many balls to juggle for a rookie director.

Also, the plot looks horrendous. After watching this trailer, all I thought was so what? Ok, there is a giant gorilla named Kong and he’s pissed that American soldiers are attacking his “kingdom.” Beyond this simple plot, the trailer provides no hints that the movie will attempt to rise above it. That worries me. At least Peter Jackson’s King Kong (2005) maintained some mystery surrounding the King instead of flying straight into him as soon as the explorers enter Skull Island’s airspace.

I’m incredibly skeptical of this film. I assume that Warner Brothers, the studio distributing the film, signed on to Skull Island in hopes of capitalizing on the monster craze that it reawakened in 2014 with Gareth Edward’s blockbuster Godzilla, which Legendary Pictures also produced and Warner Bros. distributed. That movie was beautifully shot and filled with wondrous CGI, but the entire story dragged and by the end, I was bored with the omnipotent, nuclear beast. I worry that the same fate awaits me in Kong: Skull Island.