'Kong: Skull Island' Review

Kong: Skull Island Review:

On Like Donkey Kong

BY IAN TAN

This would be a great VR experience

Kong: Skull Island comes from the guys who brought us the 2014 reboot of Godzilla, which was a successful reboot, but a rather slow-burn one at that. Skull Island attempts to ride on that film’s success, correct its flaws, and … wait for it… kickstart a shared movie universe dubbed the MonsterVerse. As we know, when done right, shared movie universes can succeed with flying colours, a la the Marvel Cinematic Universe, but when done wrong, things can get really messy, a la the DC Extended Universe. So how does Kong: Skull Island fare as a shared universe set-up?

Much like 2014’s Godzilla, the best parts about Skull Island are all the scenes that involve the titular monster and the other monsters he fights. Also like Godzilla, the worst parts of the film come whenever the humans are on screen, which is a shame considering that this film has a stellar cast. John C. Reilly was pretty good in his role as the stranded war soldier longing to get back to the world. Reilly gave the character some levity and heart, and was by far the film’s most interesting character. Besides Reilly, Tom Hiddleston, Brie Larson, Samuel L. Jackson and John Goodman's characters are paper thin, which makes it pretty hard for the audiences to care about them especially when they're caught in perilous situations. The flaw here lies not in the performances (the actors do their best), but in the script, which is filled with hallow, one-dimensional action movie archetypes. The many failed attempts at humour don’t help either. I’m disappointed to say this but, as uninteresting as the characters were in Godzilla, the characters here are even blander.

A Jurassic World escapee

Another downside to this film is its disjointed editing and poor tonal shifts from scene to scene. There just doesn’t seem to be enough connective tissue between each moment. Couple that with intense scenes followed immediately by humourous ones and we get a pretty weird emotional experience. It also feels as though some large chunks of character moments were trimmed down to tighten up the film’s runtime, which doesn’t do the film any favours as the characters don’t go through very much development, nor do they have much depth to them.

Caesar?

Humans aside, every scene with Kong or any of the other creatures of Skull Island are all fun scenes to behold on the big screen, especially in 3D.  Industrial Light & Magic, the visual effects gurus behind the creatures and environments we see in the film, have done a solid job in bringing the beautiful but terrifying world of Skull Island to life. Kong’s introduction and final battle are especially impressive, and indie director Jordan Vongt-Roberts proves he knows how to handle scale and spectacle. And while the action is very entertaining, nothing here really tops the awesome Kong versus. T-Rex sequence in Peter Jackson’s King Kong in 2005.  The helicopter sequence during Kong’s introduction in this film however, was stunning.

 

Frame this up.

In a nutshell, Kong: Skull Island feels like a typical summer action blockbuster with big spectacle, hallow characters and an on-the-nose post-credit set up for the next movie in the franchise. It’s a fun ride whenever Kong and the Skull Crawlers show up, but at other times it does get a little boring due to its poor characters, some jarring editing choices, and awkward tonal shifts.

Score: 6 out of 10

'The Lego Batman Movie' Review

Because He’s Batman

BY IAN TAN

Black & Yellow

The Lego Batman Movie comes to us after the hugely successful The Lego Movie in 2014, and follows Batman as he deals with his biggest fundamental flaw: loneliness.  This film explores that aspect of his character to great, and very comedic, effect.

The voice cast, which includes Will Arnett, Zach Galifianakis, Michael Cera, Ralph Fiennes, Rosario Dawson and many more, are fantastic in their respective roles. Galifianakis is especially entertaining as the Joker, and shares a great comedic relationship with Arnett’s Batman. Without spoiling much, their relationship in this movie is definitely the funniest aspect of the film, with Arnett and Galifianakis nailing the comedic and dramatic beats. Michael Cera was also a great casting choice as Robin, as his child-like voice lends this version of Robin a nice sense of innocence and empathy. And Ralph Fiennes was gold as Alfred.

Why does he wear his cowl at home?

With The Lego Movie being a near-perfect movie for what it was, I didn’t think Lego Batman would ever reach its predecessor’s heights, and it doesn’t, but it does come pretty close. What I thought was great about The Lego Movie was its surprisingly effective blend of humour and emotion, and The Lego Batman Movie continues to master that balancing act. However, while The Lego Movie had a surprising emotional twist at the end, this movie ended in a rather predictable fashion, which is fine for the message this film is trying to tell. It's still heartfelt, but it didn’t make me feel the same way I did when The Lego Movie ended. I also felt that the characters in this one weren’t as likable or as interesting as the ones in The Lego Movie, but maybe that’s just because I think Chris Pratt and Elizabeth Banks make a better pairing than Will Arnett and Michael Cera do.

The cameos featured in this film (from DC and beyond) were pretty hilarious, and the film’s references to previous Batman films and recent debacles like Batman V Superman and Suicide Squad are delightfully chuckle-worthy without being too degrading towards those films.

Gotta love Robin's sparkle

Overall, The Lego Batman Movie will very likely please audiences regardless of age group. The humour never ceases, it’s emotional enough when it needs to be, it provides an interesting exploration of the Batman character, and it never takes itself too seriously, and neither does the audience. So if you’re stressed out or simply have time to kill this February, The Lego Batman Movie is a great 1 hour 44 minute piece of escapist entertainment.

Score: 8/10

'Rogue One: A Star Wars Story' Review

Rogue One: A Star Wars Story Review:

Unsung Heroes

BY IAN TAN

That's one beauty of a poster!

Set just moments before 1977’s Star Wars: A New Hope, Rogue One tells the tale of the Rebel Spies who plot to thwart the evil Galactic Empire by stealing the plans to the Death Star, the Empire’s moon-sized weapon capable of making entire planets go kabloeey.

Coming off his recent success with 2014’s Godzilla, director Gareth Edwards gives the Star Wars universe a go, and with a pretty high degree of success. Visually speaking, Edwards nails it. Although the film looks and feels very much like a Star Wars film, Edwards adds his own spin to it, making iconic settings, spaceships, and the Death Star look the best they’ve ever looked on the big screen. Never before has the Death Star felt so big, and never before has its destructive power been felt as powerfully as it is in this film. Star Destroyers, X-Wings, Y-Wings and other ships also make their return, and they truly pack a punch, especially in the space battle in the film’s third act, which I found to be the best space battle seen in a Star Wars film since the Battle of Endor in Return of the Jedi.

 

Look at the size of that thing

The characters of the main Rogue One team, namely Jyn Erso (Felicity Jones), Cassian Andor (Diego Luna), Chirrut Îmwe (Donnie Yen), Baze Malbus (Jiang Wen), Bodhi Rook (Riz Ahmed) and the C3PO-like droid K2SO (Alan Tudyk) are a solid bunch, with each actor playing their role with urgency and gravitas. Alan Tudyk, although only seen as the CGI droid K-2SO, is a particular standout, providing Rogue One with some of its most memorable moments, and Riz Ahmed gives his character a neat balance of nervousness and courage. Mads Mikkelsen’s small role as Jyn’s father is also effective and emotional, but Forest Whitaker’s crazed and eccentric Saw Gerrera was little over the top in my opinion.

 

Contrary to the top left of the image, these folks work for the Rebel Alliance

On the side of the villains, Ben Mendelsohn is appropriately evil yet vulnerable as Director Orson Krennic, providing a slightly more layered and at times sympathetic Imperial Official. Guy Henry, who plays Grand Moff Tarkin in this one, does a fine job as the character, even if his portrayal doesn’t match up to Peter Cushing’s (who passed away in 1994) subtle but highly memorable performance as the same character in A New Hope. The CGI recreation of Tarkin is close to perfect, but I still find that CGI’d human beings have a funny look whenever they start speaking. If I were to grab a still from Rogue One of Tarkin, he passes 100% as a legit Peter Cushing from 1977, but once he starts talking, that’s when it starts to seem a little uncanny.

And Darth Vader’s appearance in this movie, although brief, is probably the best portrayal of the Sith lord since The Empire Strikes Back. The filmmakers combined the look of Darth Vader from A New Hope with his personality from Empire to create the most chilling and awesome version of him yet.

 

Heavy breathing

However, this film isn’t without its flaws. The pacing for one, especially in the film’s first two acts, isn’t perfect and borders along being boring, with lots of exposition-heavy scenes. It isn’t until about the midway point that the movie picks up speed and starts giving audiences the thrills and spills we’ve been waiting for. Unlike some of the best Star Wars films though, Rogue One’s re-watch value is limited only to its epic last 40 minutes, which is a little unfortunate for a Star Wars movie. Also, even though the characters are all likeable and easy to root for, a little more backstory to them would have been helpful and would have probably given the first half of the film the additional emotional weight it needed for audiences to be more invested in these new characters.

 

Pew pew pew

Overall though, I must say I enjoyed Rogue One more than I enjoyed last year’s The Force Awakens, even if the latter of the two had better pacing and more interesting characters. Rogue One just felt more unique. Plus, it does such a good job at illustrating the weight and sacrifice of the Rebel Spies from the opening crawl of A New Hope and ultimately makes the stakes in that film all the more important; it literally makes A New Hope a better movie, and that’s quite a feat if you ask me.

Score: 8 out of 10

TMNT 2 Review

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Out of the Shadows Review:

What A Mouthful of a Title

BY IAN TAN

Cowabunga!

TMNT 2 – I’ll just call it that – is a better film than the first, but only marginally, which isn’t saying much. This time round, the Turtles face new foes in the (ugly) forms of Krang, a talking brain from another dimension, and Beebop and Rocksteady, two humans turned mutated Rhinoceros and Warthog who have brains more childish than a four-year-old. Additionally, the turtles are struggling with the fact that they always have to save the city of New York in the shadows without any recognition whatsoever, hence the subtitle Out of the Shadows.

There are a number of things this film does better than the first, most notably the overall tone of the film. While the first TMNT (2014) film felt a bit too dark in tone for its own good, TMNT 2 is more brightly lit, is more colorful and more fun than the first. Plus, it never takes itself too seriously, which is appropriate considering that the film is centered around giant talking turtles.

The action, which I thought was entertaining in the first, is pretty good here too. One aeroplane sequence in particular was a lot of fun to watch. The characters are also more likable this time round. Michaelangelo, Donatello, Raphael and Leonardo are all given a good dose of screen time and character moments that reminisce that of the old cartoons. Their sense of brotherhood and their relationships with one another are executed pretty well by director Dave Green (Earth to Echo), who replaces Jonathan Liebesman for this sequel. Unfortunately, that is the extent of things that are good about this film.

 

Those biceps though

The humans, although an improvement from the first film, still fall short of being compelling or interesting in the slightest. Megan Fox does alright as April O’Neil as she did in the last one, Will Arnett as Vern Fenwick is a significantly less annoying character here than he was in the first film and Stephen Amell is passable as Casey Jones, but underwhelming for those expecting more from the fan-favourite character. As far as humans go, this movie just isn’t bothered to even try to make them interesting or realistic.

 

It's that spinny ball thingy from Battleship! 

The villains in the film were just terrible. None of them are given any real motivation for their dastardly plans to conquer the world and all of them are so poorly written that one might wonder what the writers of the film were thinking when they wrote the script. I understand that they might not have had any motivations in the cartoons either but its hard to buy into them in a live-action film if they really don’t have any reason for doing what they do.

Beebop, Rocksteady and Krang, Krang especially, are disgusting to look at and really got on my nerves. The issue isn’t that the CGI doesn’t look real, but that these creatures, when transferred from the cartoon world to live-action, don’t translate well. Krang looks like an actual living, talking brain with two eyes and tentacles, and was disturbing to look at. The Turtles were fine though, as their designs look more simplified and less cluttered than they did in the first TMNT.

 

Eww

In summary, TMNT 2 is a watchable film made worthwhile solely for the Turtles and some of the action sequences. All other elements of the film fall flat and are rather uninteresting. I did, however, enjoy this movie more than the first due to its lighter, more kid-centric tone, even if it does get a bit too cartoony at times. I wish the villains and human characters were given as much care from the filmmakers as the Turtles were, but alas, I guess we’ll have to wait for TMNT 3 to find out if they’ll finally get it right.

Score: 5.7 out of 10

'The Conjuring 2' Review

The Conjuring 2 Review:

The Warrens Take On London

BY IAN TAN

France has the best poster

The first The Conjuring was a major success, not just critically and financially, but for studio released horror films in general. At a time where the only good horror flicks audiences could remember were the ones released decades ago, James Wan stepped into the picture and gave us the gleefully creepy Insidious and the memorable The Conjuring, which has now become an audience favourite and in my opinion redefined the horror blockbuster experience. With that being said, does Wan’s sequel hold up to his 2013 smash hit?

Yes, without a doubt.

The minute the film starts, Wan pulls you right into the film with a chillingly spooky opening sequence featuring paranormal investigators Ed and Lorraine Warren, who are once again played excellently by Patrick Wilson and Vera Farmiga respectively. The two have great chemistry together and share a rather poignant romance in the film that’s as engaging as it is sweet. And the best part is that it never feels forced or shoehorned into the story; it actually grows very organically throughout the film.

 

Vera Farmiga has a problem with Patrick Wilson's sideburns

But Ed and Lorraine aren’t the only great characters in the film, as the Hodgsons – a British family who claims their house is haunted – are equally interesting characters that manage to solicit a good amount of sympathy from the audience. As is the norm now, Wan has a fantastic cast of child actors, all of whom act genuinely frightened by their haunted house situation. Madison Wolfe in particular is a standout, playing the Hodgson family member who is suspect of most of the eerie on goings in the film.

Of course, what’s a horror flick without scares, right? As per Wan’s trademark style, The Conjuring 2 is chock-full of very well crafted scares and thrills. I wouldn’t say he’s outdone himself though, as those familiar with his filmmaking style may well be able to tell how certain sequences will play out. While most of the scares in the film prove to be very effective (a sequence featuring the infamous Nun and a painting was edge-of-your-seat frightening) there are a couple that fall short, most of which involving a character called The Crooked Man. That character/entity just felt a little out-of-place to me, especially when he gets involved in a rather action-y sequence towards the end of the film.

 

Just a couple of beers before a paranormal investigation

That brings me to my other minor (read: very minor) gripe about The Conjuring 2. The budget for this film is double that of the first, and along with that comes a longer runtime that doesn’t quite justify itself (some scenes could have been paced better or even left out i.e. scenes with the Crooked Man). Additionally, a few scares here and there don’t hold up as well as some of Wan’s best scares from his Insidious films and the first Conjuring, probably due to the fact that they feel bigger (due to budget) and less intimate than the ones in his previous films.

 

Freddy?

Overall, The Conjuring 2 is a solid sequel to The Conjuring and proves that James Wan is still one of the best horror directors in Hollywood. His horror films all have a sense of fun that is made all the more enjoyable when watching them with a packed audience and a group of friends. The few bits of humour in the film work pretty well too and bring a good sense of levity to the film. He just strikes the balance between fun and scary so well, especially with this film. If the Conjuring films keep delivering the goods as they have so far, and if Wan’s on board to direct a third film in this franchise, sign me up. This could end up being a solid horror trilogy.

Score: 7.8 out of 10