Twas Beauty that killed the Beast. Never again will I be able to use such a phrase this conncetively.
As “Godzilla (2014)” sought out to affirm the focus of kaiju filmmaking upon the allegorical nature of its titular beasts being forces of nature, “Kong: Skull Island” builds upon the foundation of its predecessor by being a send up to the more popcorn B-movie cut that general audiences are a bit more familiar with.
Reprising its presence from the 2014 Gareth Edwards film,
MONARCH, an agency tasked with tracking and categorizing giant monsters, sends representatives
under armed guard to investigate the titular island domain of Kong at the tail
end of the Vietnam War. After their first encounter with the beast leaves them
stranded with only a few days to get to the opposite end of the island for a rendezvous
to take them home, the group must survive the terrors of Skull Island while
attempting to figure out whether or not Kong poses a potential threat to
humanity in the future.
While the 70s style Vietnam War mash up complete with famous
homages to 80s cinema on the subject matter may seem like a bit of an odd
combination, the results actually bring to fruition a relatively lean thrill
ride that revels in its own B movie roots.
Kong and the creatures of Skull Island are rendered lovingly
and their throwdowns are front and center in contrast to the more esoteric
mystique surrounding Godzilla that director Gareth Edwards put forth.
The result makes “Skull Island” a far lighter and more crowd
pleasing film but the central theme of these creatures being forces of nature
is never quite lost despite being more downplayed in favor of the action
sequences.
Rounded out by a strong cast that manages to decently carry
what basic material that they have to work with, save for John C. Reilly who
damn near steals the show from even Kong himself, and what you’re left with is a straight forward but imaginatively crafted adventure film that never slows
down, stands strong on its own two feet, and contributes some of the best world
building that an attempt at a cinematic universe has taken a pass at since
Marvel institutionalizing post credit sequences.
The only real flaw with “Kong: Skull Island” is that despite
being firmly aware of exactly what it is, the energy doesn’t quite distract from
the film being a generally solid accomplishment of what it wants to be that
never truly rises up to the sum of its parts.
As a result, the film may be a solid ride from start to
finish but may be more effective upon first impact than repeat viewing.
7 Eighth Wonders of the world out of 10
For all of the ups and downs of Disney’s recent attempts at
remaking the classic entries of their animated cannon into live action, the
biggest compliment that I can offer is that they’ve at least consistently
attempted something new.
While “Beauty and the Beast” may technically be the second
best of the lot thus far, with 2016’s “The Jungle Book” still sitting at the
top of the pile, it remains unfortunately marred by being the most pointlessly
conceived of barring the chase of easy money on behalf of a company that has
been slowly earning a reputation of quality and success through boldness.
The romance between Belle and the Beast is a classic of
animation, famously breaking through the cultural barrier blocking animated
films from nomination for best film of the year by the Academy of Arts and
Sciences. While its technical achievements would qualify it as a masterpiece of
sorts alone, it’s also one of the more progressive entries of the Princess
oriented side of the Disney Canon.
It’s critical praise is particularly notable today because
its initial audience of the 1990s is only now barely reaching into their 30s,
which draws attention to the biggest issue with this film.
Although the biggest praise with the other remakes may be
their reinterpretation of the source material, it helps that every film chosen
thus far has been removed from their initial release by nearly half of a
century.
“Beauty and the Beast” is less than 3 decades old and “Beauty
and the Beast (2017)” is more or less a verbatim remake of that film, almost to
the point of recreating it shot for shot on occasions. The result is something
of an inferior production caused by a reverence of the original that begs for
comparison.
This general sense of pointlessness and lack of imagination
would have probably sunken any other film but the one thing that truly saves it
is the passion involved in its production.
The A list cast does a tremendous job in bringing their
characters to life in an energetic style akin to that of a stylish stage show
and occasionally even manage to put their own twist on the iconic characters
that they play. Furthermore, despite the uneven vocal performances by some key
members of the cast, several of the musical numbers are so extravagant and exuberantly
performed that you just can’t help but get swept up in the pageantry of the
show.
The love put forth by the cast and production crew carries
forward what was almost a throw away cash grab into something that comes off
more as a passion project by those fortunate enough to indulge themselves and
share that indulgence with like minded fans.
I fully expect this to be a bit on the polarizing side in
the grand scheme of things.
A lot of what makes “Beauty and the Beast (2017)” work is an
over reliance on intertexuality regarding its own source material and for this
reason the film just doesn’t quite stand strongly on its own 2 legs. However,
the sincerity of its reverence is undeniably infectious and allows it to thrive
as the sort of family appropriate crowd pleaser that it clearly aims to be.
6 Tales as old as time out of 10
No comments:
Post a Comment