Kingsman: The Golden Circle (2017) - Quick Review

I apologize, folks, for both the lateness and brevity of this post, but due to unexpected technical difficulties that have prevented me from accessing the review that I was working on for this film, I decided to just do a short review for it instead so that I could get it out at a reasonable time. With that said, let’s delve into Kingsman: The Golden Circle, the highly-anticipated follow-up to director Matthew Vaughn’s 2015 effort, Kingsman: The Secret Service. In a year that saw the release of several spy-themed films, including the latest installments of the Mission: Impossible and James Bond franchises, this adaptation of comic book writer Mark Millar’s 2012 comic series of the same name managed to stand out amongst its peers thanks to its thrilling action sequences and a great origin story for its likable main protagonist, Eggsy. The same strengths apply to this new film as well, which does up the ante in terms of the ludicrous but still all-around entertaining action sequences. As was the case with the first film, though, the extreme brutality of some of these sequences may prove to be a bit much for some. However, also like its predecessor, the film manages to temper this thanks to some great character development for Eggsy, who’s once again played excellently by Taron Egerton, and his two main allies, Harry Hart and Merlin. Yes, as seen in the trailers, Colin Firth returns as Harry after his presumed death in the previous film, and for what it’s worth, the way in which this film explains his return does make sense in the context of this universe. Plus, Harry’s ‘road to recovery’ is handled greatly thanks to both the writing and Firth’s performance. Closing out the main trio is Kingsman tech guru Merlin, played by Matthew Vaughn regular Mark Strong, who also gets some great character moments as well.

Now, with all that said, that doesn’t necessarily mean that this film is ‘perfect’. Despite the addition of the Kingsman’s American cousins, the Statesman, most of the new characters in this film don’t exactly get much to work with (e.g. even though he appears prominently in the trailers, Channing Tatum’s Agent Tequila is basically just a ‘cameo’ role). The film also boasts a longer runtime than its predecessor, meaning that some scenes do drag a bit. And it could even be argued that this film’s plot doesn’t do much different compared to the first film, as there are some noticeable similarities between the two. Still, what’s not to love about a film that opens with a car chase set to Prince’s ‘Let’s Go Crazy’, concludes with an epic shoot-out set to Elton John’s ‘Saturday Night’s Alright for Fighting’, and features the Rocket Man himself in one of the most epic cameos in recent memory. In short, this film reminds me a lot of another sequel that came out this year, Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2. Both films were entertaining follow-ups to their excellent predecessors but were also deemed by most critics as being ‘inferior’ to them. And yet, like Guardians 2, I find that I kind of like this film more than the first Kingsman. Obviously, I’m going to have to see this film again to see if this truly ends up being the case but, suffice it to say, after the crap that I had to put up with last week thanks to a film that shall not be named, Kingsman: The Golden Circle was exactly the ‘pick-me-up’ that I needed.

Rating: 5/5!

King Kong Retrospective (1933, 1976, and 2005)

In the world of cinema, one ape stands above the rest as one of the most iconic creatures in film history; King Kong. In 1933, filmmakers Merian C. Cooper (who also became known as one of the primary figures in the development of the Cinerama projection technique) and Ernest B. Schoedsack co-directed a monster film about a giant ape who lives on a mysterious island known as ‘Skull Island’. There, he is discovered by a filmmaking crew that journeys there and is subsequently brought to New York, where he rampages around for a bit before climbing the Empire State Building, where he is finally shot down by fighter planes. This beloved tale of ‘beauty killed the beast’, in which the ape also falls in love with a young woman who is ‘sacrificed’ to him, still stands as one of the most famous films of all time. But over the years, the ‘Eighth Wonder of the World’ has gone through numerous onscreen interpretations. The latest of these, Kong: Skull Island, hits theaters this weekend and in anticipation of that, today I’ll be reviewing the King Kong films. Now, to be specific, I’m not covering every single film that is part of the official franchise. I’m only reviewing the 1933 original, the 1976 ‘re-imagining’, and the 2005 remake. Plus, I’ll also be looking at a 1962 crossover between Kong and Godzilla, which is being included solely because the new Kong film is part of the same franchise as the 2014 Godzilla reboot and a new version of this crossover is set to come out in 2020. Thus, I will not be reviewing Son of Kong, the sequel to the 1933 Kong that was released just nine months after the original (in the same year, no less), King Kong Escapes, a Toho-produced film that was, believe it or not, co-produced by Rankin/Bass (yes, THAT Rankin/Bass) as a live-action remake of a TV show they produced titled The King Kong Show, and King Kong Lives, a sequel to the 1976 Kong which, from what I hear… is just godawful.

KING KONG (1933)

We start things off, of course, with the original classic produced by RKO from 1933. By next year, this film will be 85 years old… and from the perspective of someone who watched it for the first time ever just a few days ago, it still holds up quite well. Sure, there are obviously some parts of the film that are now dated (e.g. some potentially racist stereotypes) but it’s still a highly enjoyable adventure story with a solid lead cast that includes Fay Wray as the charming leading lady Ann Darrow, Bruce Cabot as the rugged first mate Jack Driscoll who later falls in love with her, and Robert Armstrong as the eccentric filmmaker Carl Denham who leads the expedition to Skull Island. But, of course, the main draw of the film is its ground-breaking special effects that still look great today. Seriously, a lot of effort went into developing the visuals for this film. Most of the creatures in the film, especially Kong, were created via stop-motion animation by special effects pioneer Willis O’Brien. But then there were some other interesting things that they did to integrate live-action footage into the scene, like having a full-sized model of Kong’s head whenever he puts someone in his mouth, having the actors perform in front of a rear projection system, and having shots of actors composited in with shots of the stop-motion animation. And, again, as dated as some of these effects may have become, it’s still quite an impressive feat for a film that was made nearly nine decades ago. Obviously, Kong has seen a lot of other interpretations over the years but, no matter what, the original King Kong is still one of the most iconic films of all-time.

Rating: 5/5!

KING KONG VS. GODZILLA (1962)

(Disclaimer: As is common with a lot of the Godzilla films, there were different versions of this film that were made for the regions that it was released in. The following review is for the original 97-minute Japanese version and not the 91-minute version released in the U.S.)

There’s quite a lot of history surrounding this film. Arguably the first of its kind in terms of monster crossover films, King Kong vs. Godzilla was also the first film in which both monsters appeared in color. But early on in its development, it was almost going to be about King Kong going up against an enlarged version of Dr. Frankenstein’s monster, the original idea conceived by Willis O’Brien in 1960. Once the film was picked up by Toho, the studio behind the Godzilla films, it was reworked into a crossover between Kong and Godzilla, the latter of whom made a triumphant return to the big-screen after the climactic ending in 1955’s Godzilla Raids Again in which he’s buried in ice. Likewise, this was Kong’s first feature film since the original King Kong back in 1933. What follows is exactly what you’d expect from a Godzilla film; you’re not really in it for the plot, which sees a pharmaceutical company attempt to orchestrate a publicity stunt involving Kong, which eventually leads into a battle with Godzilla. Instead, it’s all about the fight between these two iconic monsters in the cheesy but entertaining definitive style of the Godzilla films; in other words, having two guys in rubber suits duking it out. Admittedly, though, this final battle is only at the very end of the film. Aside from that, there’s a brief confrontation between the two and there’s also a scene in which Kong fights a giant octopus that attacks the village on the island which he initially resides on. As such, some parts of the film do drag a bit. However, it’s ultimately worth it for the Kong-Godzilla fights. With that in mind, it’s easy to see why this has been one of the most popular films in the Godzilla series and I do look forward to the upcoming ‘remake’ in 2020 which, of course, is the main reason why this film was included in this retrospective.

Rating: 3/5

KING KONG (1976)

The first big ‘remake’ of King Kong came about in 1976, produced for Paramount by legendary producer Dino De Laurentiis and directed by John Guillermin. From what I’ve read, there was a lot of anticipation surrounding the film upon release. However, it only ended up being a commercial success, as it got a mixed to negative response from critics. So, with that in mind, is this take on the Eighth Wonder of the World as bad as some of the critics said it was? Well, not really; in some aspects, it’s even a little underrated. At the very least, the film is well-made on a technical level; cinematography, location/set design, etc. The key selling point of the film, like the original, is its visuals. In this iteration, Kong was portrayed by legendary makeup artist Rick Baker in an ape suit, and while Baker has stated that he wasn’t pleased with the final design, it does look great on-screen. There’s even one scene in which they have a full-scale, 40-foot-tall Kong animatronic, which was designed by special effects artist Carlo Rambaldi, who also worked on films like E.T. and Alien. Sadly, it didn’t end up working right and, thus, was only used for one scene; the scene in which Kong breaks free from his chains in New York. The only visuals that haven’t aged well, though, are the green-screen effects, specifically whenever Kong is holding someone in his hand. I watched this film on VUDU at the highest quality, HDX, and they just didn’t look good. The best way I can describe it is that it’s obvious whenever a green-screen is being used. Thankfully, most of the other visuals in the film are better by comparison, hence why the film ended up winning the Oscar for Best Visual Effects that year.

But while most of the film’s visuals are great, resulting in some great monster action sequences, the story isn’t as successful. Now, for the record, I don’t mind the changes that were made to differentiate the film from the original. Instead of the premise being about a film crew that goes to shoot at Skull Island, this film instead focuses on an oil tycoon named Fred Wilson who journeys to the island in search of oil. Once Kong is found, he’s taken back to New York and is used as a marketing gimmick for his company. And instead of climbing the Empire State Building, he climbs the towers of the World Trade Center in yet another equally memorable Kong finale. Again, I’m fine with these changes, but the film has an overall campy tone that I don’t think works very well. The acting’s hit-or-miss, too. Jeff Bridges is fine in the Jack Driscoll role (re-imagined here as Jack Prescott, a paleontologist) and Charles Grodin is enjoyably over-the-top in the role of Fred Wilson. Jessica Lange, on the other hand, is the big weak link of the film as she’s just too ditzy in the role of the Ann Darrow equivalent, Dwan. Thankfully, this didn’t immediately kill her career because, as we all know, she has done better in other projects. So, in conclusion, what do I think about this arguably infamous remake? Well, I don’t hate it, but I don’t necessarily love it either. It is well-made for its time and has some nice creature effects thanks to the legendary duo of Rick Baker and Carlo Rambaldi. Not only that, but the film did leave its mark on pop culture as evident from two former attractions at Universal Studios parks; the iconic King Kong Encounter from Universal Studios Hollywood’s Studio Tour and Kongfrontation at Universal Studios Orlando. Still, it just didn’t have the same awe factor of the original. Thus, as far as Kong remakes go, I prefer the following remake over this one.

Rating: 3/5

KING KONG (2005)

And, finally, we have the latest ‘remake’ of the original film; from 2005, Universal’s King Kong, directed by Peter Jackson in what was his first major project after the Lord of the Rings trilogy. Like the ’76 film, there was a lot of hype surrounding it, but unlike that film, this one fared much better with critics and audiences. Sure enough, it’s an excellent new take on the classic story of ‘Beauty Killed the Beast’. The story is more in line with the original and Jackson’s affection for the 1933 film is apparent throughout (e.g. using classic lines, featuring snippets of the original film’s score, etc.). At the same time, though, he does just enough to make his take on the story his own, like giving Ann Darrow more drive in this version than previous incarnations of the character. By comparison, Fay Wray’s take on the character in the ’33 film, while still undeniably great and iconic, was mostly just a damsel-in-distress that didn’t have much of an emotional connection with Kong. This Ann, on the other hand, stands her own ground against Kong and has a much more personal bond with him up until the very end. On that note, Naomi Watts does a fantastic job in the role of Ann and while Jack Black and Adrien Brody have gotten less positive responses as Carl Denham and Jack Driscoll, respectively (in Brody’s case, for being too bland, and in Black’s case, for being too over-the-top), I thought that they were both fine. The other big star of the cast? Andy Serkis, the king of motion-capture. Via the same process that turned him into Gollum in the Lord of the Rings films, he took on the role of Kong in this film, and the motion-capture effects for Kong are fantastic. Heck, a lot of the film’s effects are excellent. Sure, most of them are primarily CG-based this time around but they do their job in creating the world of Skull Island and the creatures that inhabit it.

There’s only one thing that really holds this film back, and it’s the one thing that everyone has said about the film; it’s too damn long. Clocking in at a staggering 187 minutes (and, for the record, that’s only the Theatrical Cut; the ‘Extended Edition’, released on DVD, buffs up the already hefty runtime by 20 minutes), the film takes its sweet time to tell the story and while I wasn’t necessarily ‘bored’ at any part in the film, at the same time I will admit that sometimes it can be a chore to get through. By comparison, the 1933 film was far better paced at a brisk 100 minutes (or 104 minutes if you add in the overture). Heck, even the 1976 film, which also had a slower pace to it, wasn’t as long; it was just a little over two hours. Simply put, there are quite a few parts in this film that would’ve benefitted greatly from some cuts, especially during the long, long, LONG trip to Skull Island. But, despite the arguably problematic runtime, it’s undeniably clear that Jackson was the best choice to do a new version of King Kong and he succeeds in doing so with this film. Now, I’ll admit that I watched this version first before the original. Like the 2009 Star Trek film, I had purchased it on iTunes and originally watched it on my iPod (and before any of you ask, yes, I managed to get through the whole three-hour film while watching it on an iPod). And while I now regard the original as the best version of the story (because, obviously…), I still have highly positive feelings towards the 2005 film, one of the best remakes of all-time.  

Rating: 4.5/5

Tron (1982) and Tron: Legacy (2010) reviews

I’ve mentioned before that I’m a big fan of video games just as much as I am a fan of movies as both have been a key part of my life for as long as I can remember. But here’s the thing… when you combine these two forms of media, the end results are never really that good. Most movie-licensed video games really end up being nothing more than simple ‘cash grabs’ looking to bank on the success of the movies they’re based on, as they are rushed out around the time of the movie’s release date (most infamously ‘E.T.’ for the Atari 2600, which had to be made in just five-and-a-half weeks to meet a Christmas deadline with the end result being so bad that Atari buried a large amount of unsold copies of the game in a landfill in New Mexico). And on the other side of the spectrum, most movies that are based on video games are, to put it bluntly, quite terrible. Usually the main reason for this is because a lot of them stray from the source material quite drastically, like ‘Super Mario Bros.’ or the 1994 ‘Street Fighter’ film. There have been some decent video-game based films that have come out over the years like ‘Mortal Kombat’ and ‘Prince of Persia’ but for the most part a lot of them suck. But who knows? Maybe we’ll get a great video-game based film sometime soon. After all, there are quite a few of these films that are currently in development including film adaptations of games like ‘Assassin’s Creed’ and ‘World of Warcraft’. However, that’s not why we’re here today…

For you see if you really think about it, the best ‘video game movies’ actually aren’t ones that are based on a particular game. Instead, the best ‘video game movies’ are ones with stories that are ‘inspired/influenced by video games’ and I do feel that because of that, these films work much better because the filmmakers/writers aren’t trying to condense the plot of a video game into a two hour movie and they don’t have to worry that much about having to stay true to any source material. With that said, two of the best films that are ‘inspired’ by video games, in my opinion, are Disney’s ‘Tron’ movies, consisting of the 1982 cult classic ‘Tron’ and its 2010 sequel, ‘Tron: Legacy’. I refer to the original as a ‘cult classic’ because it wasn’t that big of a hit when it first came out, despite the fact that it was a groundbreaking pioneer of the sci-fi film genre when it came to visual effects. However, it did manage to attract a notable cult following in the years after its release and Disney eventually made a follow-up to it 28 years later in 2010. Then they followed that up with an animated series, ‘Tron: Uprising’, but it only ran for one season. Despite this, a sequel to ‘Legacy’ is still in development (at least that’s what we can assume at the moment). All I have to say about that is if they do it… hopefully it won’t take them 28 years to make it. But with that said, it’s time to head onto ‘the Grid’ as today I look at the two ‘Tron’ films; ‘Tron’ and ‘Tron: Legacy’.

“Do you Believe in the Users?”

TRON (1982)

First off, I just want to mention something interesting about how I came around to watching this film: I actually watched ‘Legacy’ first before watching this film and if you’re wondering why, there’s actually a good reason for this. That is because when ‘Legacy’ was released, it was pretty much damn-near impossible to find the original film anywhere. Now for the record I’m not saying that copies of it weren’t available… it was just that you couldn’t really find them no matter how hard you looked. They weren’t in any video stores (and keep in mind, this was 2010 when most video stores were going out of business… in fact most of the video stores near me had already closed down), it wasn’t on Netflix (neither in DVD’s or their Instant Streaming section) and any DVD copies of the film (that certain edition of the film was already out of print, by the way) that were being sold online were being sold at ridiculously high prices. Apparently one copy on EBay ran for as much as $300 (!)… Just for one bloody movie and one that, for the record, wasn’t as popular as something like, say, ‘Star Wars’. It wasn’t until a few months after I saw ‘Legacy’ when I finally managed to find the original film playing on Showtime one day. Nowadays, the original DVD editions of the film go for much cheaper prices online (usually around $10) but I’m just amazed at the fact that this film was incredibly hard to find (not to mention the fact that any of the limited copies of the film were being sold at very high prices) at the time of its sequel’s initial release, which you think wouldn’t be the case given that when it comes to sequels I’m pretty sure that most people want to watch the previous films again before going to see the new one. And I don’t care if they were busy working on the Blu-Ray (which I do own, by the way). They should have at least had it be available to the public in one way or another during the time, but they didn’t and hopefully I wasn’t the only one who was really pissed about that. But anyway, back to ‘Tron’…

Whether you like it or not, you can’t deny the fact that this was a groundbreaking film for its time as it was the first feature-length film to extensively use CGI as much as it did. And sure, nowadays the CGI in this film is fairly dated (in fact, fairly might be too kind of a word to use in this case) but even with that in mind, I still think the CGI is pretty good in regards to the time. Not only that, but it also gives the film a distinct visual style that I don’t think that any other film has managed to match. Really, ‘Tron’ just has a cool sci-fi vibe to it (the same can be said for the sequel as well) that makes it such an entertaining sci-fi film even if the story isn’t as strong as the visuals. The story itself here is fairly simple at best but manages to at least work in the context of the film itself and at the very least, the film is never boring. The cast is fairly solid as well, though there are quite a few instances of over-the-top acting, mostly from David Warner, who in this film plays three roles; Kevin Flynn’s (Jeff Bridges) real-world rival Ed Dillinger, the Master Control Program A.I. system, and its second-in-command program Sark. But overall, ‘Tron’ is an entertaining piece of 80’s nostalgia and certainly one of the most underrated sci-fi films of the 80’s. In fact quite frankly I’d say that it’s one of the most underrated films of all time.

Rating: 4/5

TRON: LEGACY (2010)

It did take quite a long time for it to get made (28 years to be precise), but in 2010, Disney finally returned to the world of ‘The Grid’ with ‘Tron: Legacy’ and the end result is a film that not only continues the story from where the original film left off, but also does a fantastic job of staying true to the original film in many ways (e.g. certain lines of dialogue, visual cues, etc…) while also giving everything a much needed modern update. However, that also means that, like the original, the writing here is not as strong as the visuals in regards to the story. In the case of this film, you can say that it’s a case where there are a lot of interesting ideas that are introduced in this film and yet it doesn’t really do much with them. In other words, the story in this is quite simple in its structure just like the original ‘Tron’. So with that said, some may argue that this is nothing more than just a much better-looking version of that film. Still, just like ‘Tron’, I’m not that bothered by that.  I feel that ‘Legacy’ is still a very entertaining sci-fi film and I feel that it manages to get around the fact that the writing is not the absolute best in the world.

The visuals in this are absolutely fantastic and you really have to give credit to director Joseph Kosinski here (this being his first feature film) in that he does a great job at immersing the audience in the worlds that he creates (the same can be said for his second film, ‘Oblivion’, which ironically had the same main issue that ‘Tron: Legacy’ had in regards to the writing). When I saw this in theaters, I saw it in 3-D and although it’s been a while, I think I remember liking the 3-D. Of course, one of the best parts of this whole movie is the score by Daft Punk. Their electronic music blends perfectly with the film and it’s quite frankly one of the best film scores of the past few years. As for the acting, it’s as solid as it was in the first ‘Tron’ and thankfully doesn’t have as many over-the-top performances though even with that said, one of the standouts of the cast would easily be Michael Sheen as the eccentric bar owner Castor because of that exact reason; he really gets into that role. As for the three main leads, Jeff Bridges is just as great here as he was in the original ‘Tron’, Olivia Wilde is another major standout in here as the naïve but curious isomorphic program Quorra, and as for Garrett Hedlund, he may not be the most compelling lead in the world but I still think he does a really good job here channeling Jeff Bridges as Sam Flynn, son of Bridges’ character Kevin Flynn. Some feel that the character development in this was rather weak, but I still found that I actually was able to connect with the main characters, especially in regards to the father-son relationship between Kevin and Sam.

So in short, ‘Tron: Legacy’ may not be a perfect movie but it is still a very entertaining one, just like the original ‘Tron’ that came before it back in 1982. This ‘Tron’ manages to one-up its predecessor with far better special effects but it also follows in the footsteps of the original quite well. It continues the story but also pays a few homages to the original film so even though it’s been nearly 3 decades since the original came out, this new film still very much feels like a ‘Tron’ movie. Sure, that also means that, like the original ‘Tron’, this new film also has noticeable scripting problems with a story that is a bit too simple for a film like this and not the best character development in the world but I do feel that the film’s major strengths (the visuals, the score, the action, etc…) manage to overcome the film’s shortcomings for another enjoyable adventure within the world of ‘the Grid’. And really, I don’t think the writing is ‘that bad’ though I’m guessing some might have been expecting much more from it given how much more advanced the technology world has become in the years since the original first came out. In the end, the film does pave the way for a potential sequel which I would be very interesting in seeing. But like I said earlier, hopefully it won’t take Disney more than two and a half decades to get the next film made.

Rating: 4/5