Showing posts with label Samuel Jackson. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Samuel Jackson. Show all posts

Thursday, October 18, 2018

The Long Dark Marathon of the Soul 2018: Kong: Skull Island (2017), directed by Jordan Vogt-Roberts



     All the way back in 2014, I started off the Marathon with a look at King Kong, a work of art that can truly be said to have set the bar for what films could achieve. Not quite in story or acting perhaps, but certainly technologically, taking Willis O’Brien’s pioneering stop-motion animation from 1925’s The Lost World and pairing it with a glimpse of the scale envisioned by Fritz Lang’s Metropolis, upgraded with the latest in early 30s Hollywood tech. It was a movie that stretched across the globe, from bright lights of New York City to the mysterious and deadly Skull Island, and terrorized by a monster that, while familiar, seemed far more extravagant and fantastical than the stuff Universal was peddling at the time. The world seemed like a more mystical place with King Kong, and even though there were monster movies, even giant monster movies before him, every movie since has lived in his shadow.

     Every successful film with a mildly original gimmick is bound to have people trying to reinvent the wheel so to speak, and King Kong is no exception. Mighty Joe Young was one of earliest highlights, and the movie screens of the 50s would be packed with giant *insert animal here* movies, including the future king of kaiju Gojira. Kong was also subject to the Hollywood Remake Machine a few time, once in 1976 by notorious film producer Dino de Laurentiis and again in 2005 by Peter Jackson, but neither of them reached quite the same heights as the original did back in 1933. Everyone’s favorite ape seemed doomed to remain a touchstone of cinematic history, the subject of so many references and callbacks that his own identity would be subsumed within the miasma of pop culture. People would know of Kong but not about Kong, if that makes any sense.

     The future of the stupendous simian seemed bleak, until 2017 saw the Jordan Vogt-Roberts re-imagine the world of the titular ape with Kong: Skull Island. The year is 1973. America is slinking back home after getting its ass kicked by Vietnam, and William Randa of the government agency Monarch is looking to get the government’s checkbook so he can set up an expedition to a place called Skull Island, an isolated spot in the South Pacific so mysterious and deadly that it makes the Bermuda Triangle look like your local supermarket. There’s possibly something useful to mankind on that island, but mostly the government doesn’t want those spoopy Russians to get there first, so they give Randa and his ragtag group of soldiers and civilians the greenlight to fly to Skull Island and start dropping ‘seismic charges’ everywhere. Which turns out to be the dumbest idea in the world, as this draws the attention and the ire of the skyscraper-sized gorilla known as Kong, who proceeds to rip them all a new asshole. With their transportation and most of their personnel destroyed, the surviving members of the crew must make their way to the north of the island to freedom, avoiding the strange, deadly and generally giant fauna that reside there. Things aren’t just that simple in life though, as it turns out and perhaps Kong isn’t the vicious monster that he appears to be at first glance. In fact when the really vicious monsters show up, Kong might be these people’s only chance at survival.

     As a film blog that loves to namedrop other movies, the obvious one to drop here is the 2014’s Godzilla by Gareth Edwards. Both films were produced by Legendary Pictures, and whether intentionally or otherwise Skull Island feels like a direct and obvious response to the criticisms that the previous film received. Godzilla was a somber film, a spiritual sequel to Gareth Edwards’ ‘kaiju attack as allegory for natural disaster’ film Monsters, with only a little bit of Godzilla and a whole lot of whoever that one lead actor was supposed to be. Skull Island, by contrast, is dripping with explosions, common action movie tropes and comedic one-liners, packed with names like Tom Hiddleston, John Goodman and Samuel L. Jackson, and is rife with the king of Kongs and a slew of other bizarre beasties. Never once in this film are you left wanting for monsters or monster fight, and you’d be surprised how often that comes up in giant monster movies.

     Unfortunately, while Skull Island is a perhaps bit more palatable than Godzilla, it’s in the way that a McDonald’s hamburger is palatable. There are more recognizable characters than Godzilla, in the sense that I remember the names of the main cast, but they’re all the onenote archetypes that you’ve seen in a hundred other things. You’ve got the crazy guy who provides all the jokes, the sexy loner who is obviously the hero, the single female reporter trying to break the big scoop, and a handful of extras to round things out. There’s no hidden complexities here, no twists or turns, just a plain patty, single slice of cheese on a sesame seed bun. Certainly an edible meal, even enjoyable every once in a blue moon, but not by any means an amazing experience.

     You can tell this is the case in the cavalier way that violence and death is used in Skull Island, where a bunch of people who may or may not have names or personalities get thrown around like rag dolls by a random CGI creature, which presumably I’m supposed to care about, despite not really being given an adequate reason. Hell even the other characters in the movie barely seem to care when one of them gets knocked off, seeing as they might mention it once before moving on completely. A specific example comes to mind where a character is captured by monster birds and the protagonist decides to give up trying to help him IMMEDIATELY, despite being armed and birds being spooked by gunfire. Apparently the idea of accidentally shooting an acquaintance is worse than letting them get eaten alive, according to Skull Island. Remember that the next time you think about going camping with Jordan Vogt-Roberts.

     Of course the gamble here is that you won’t notice the cookie-cutter characters and wanton disregard for human life, and instead focus on the giant gorilla fighting things in beautiful locations to classic rock radio hits. A good bet, because the scenery is indeed beautiful, the hits are classic and the monster encounters are as cool as can be, and for a lot of people that would likely be enough to seal the deal, but for an ol’ curmudgeon like me the whole thing feels a bit off. Kong seems a bit too intelligent in parts, the ‘skullcrawlers’ seem like a unneeded substitute for the dinosaurs from the original film, it was as if they tried to enforce ‘comic bookness’ onto a concept that didn’t really need it. You’ve already sold me on a gorilla the length of several football fields punching stuff, it doesn’t also need to break out improvised weaponry like it’s a hairy Jackie Chan. That’s what they call ‘burying the lead’.

     However, I must admit that even a jaded bastard like myself got something of a thrill at Kong going buckwild on some fools, and some of the lore being dropped did get my lore glands a’pumpin’, so I suppose Kong: Skull Island manages to squeak by with a recommendation. This is a textbook modern popcorn movie, something to turn your brain off for a while while you watch the pretty pictures, but plays at something bigger in the hopes of jumping on the franchise train. If that’s the kind of thing you’re looking for, maybe you’re trying to find something Halloween-worthy that you can watch with the kids, then pop this in and have yourselves an evening. Those in the mood for tougher fare will be lifting, but luckily there are plenty of giant monster movies to choose from these days, from Godzilla to Gamera to Pacific Rim. And it’s all thanks to King Kong.

Wednesday, October 18, 2017

The Long Dark Marathon of the Soul 2017 - The Hateful Eight (2015), directed by Quentin Tarantino



     I feel like the highlight of any film director’s career, aspiring or otherwise, is when you try something new and different and completely out of left field and it totally works. That’s how I imagine George Lucas felt when he took his love of old film serials and transformed it into Star Wars, or how David Lynch took a stress dream about his life and parenthood in Philadelphia and ended up with Eraserhead. Or John Carpenter taking Halloween back to its haunted roots with an unkillable, silent murderer It’s just so satisfying that in an industry, and to a greater extent a society which obsesses over marketability and profitability that sometimes a little bit of creativity manages to sneak in and change things up a bit. As far as directors go though, I don’t know many who have managed the balancing act of creative freedom, critical acclaim and commercial appeal quite like Mr. Quentin Tarantino. Not Lucas, who ended up trying and failing to live up to his own enormous legacy. Not Lynch, whose unique vision has often found itself at odds with the box office. Not Carpenter, whose constant struggles with The Man ended in a bitter separation. Tarantino grabbed the tiger by the tail and now he’s got a tiger-skin rug in his den.

     For those wondering why I haven’t covered a Tarantino film before now after I just blew smoke, there are two main reasons. One, I had already seen what was the ‘major’ Tarantino films (Reservoir Dogs, Kill Bill and Pulp Fiction) prior, and none of his other films really seemed to fit the Marathon motif. Yes, occasionally I try to focus this list on horror movies. Secondly, technically I had already watched a Tarantino movie for the Marathon years back, which ultimately never coalesced into a review. That movie was From Dusk Till Dawn, the vampire action-horror movie that saw Mr. Brown split directing duties right down the middle with Robert Rodriguez, the guy who made a bunch of B-movies and also Spy Kids. The film is, as you’d expect, of two minds, a legitimately tense thriller that devolves into a sleazy wannabe Army of Darkness schlockfest with vampire strippers and guns popping out of dude’s dicks. Could it have worked? Yeah. Does it work? Not in my opinion, no. The sudden shift in tone, although likely intentional by the directors, is jarring and only highlights the fact that these are two stories that really would have been better off explored in their own films. Also the attempt at making the audience sympathize for the death of an unapologetic rapist and murder, even if it does give George Clooney a chance to actually act, just rings hollow. Perhaps someone could drum up the enthusiasm to write up a couple thousand words for From Dusk Till Dawn, but that someone wasn’t your ol’ pal Thunderbird.

     Which brings us to The Hateful Eight, the eighth and possibly final film by Tarantino (can’t remember if he’s still retiring). This was also his second foray in the western genre following the immensely popular Django Unchained, and if this was going to be his last film, he certainly pulled out all the stops. An all-star cast, including Kurt Russell, Channing Tatum and Samuel Jackson, a score by composing legend Ennio Morricone, sweeping vistas taken straight from a nature documentary, Tarantino has practically lifted a spaghetti western from the 1970s wholesale and modified it for the modern age. Which is about the same thing he did with Jackie Brown and Kill Bill, so you know he’s got a great track record for this kind of thing.

     Of course things aren’t quite what you might expect from a typical Sergio Leone type film. There are sweepings vistas yes, but almost the entire movie takes place in a single room, which imbues it with a claustrophobic atmosphere. Instead of the sweltering heat we usually associate with the wild (wild) west, we’re in a the middle of a blizzard. Rather than an adventure film, a lone gunman wandering into a blighted town and enacting justice, it’s something quite different. More of a whodunit murder mystery crossed with a character study of eight different people forced to interact with each other. However it does take place in the American West (Wyoming specifically) circa the late 19th century (a few years after the Civil War, specifically), which at the end of the day is all you really need to be a western movie, in a technical sense.

     The Hateful Eight may have subverted those common features of westerns, but I think it’s mainly so that Tarantino can highlight the major theme of the genre, and specifically the late-era westerns of Leone and others: nihilism and violence. There are no heroes in The Hateful Eight, no gallant John Waynes or Lone Rangers here to save the damsel and shoot a couple dozen Apaches along the way. There are only people all too eager to throw any semblance of morality to the wind in order to achieve their own interests. John Ruth is perfectly willing to murder everyone in the store/house (Minnie’s Haberdashery)in order to protect his bounty, Mannix is a craven opportunist despite his ‘Southern pride’ and his supposed position of sheriff, and so on. Even Sam Jackson’s character, Major Marcus, who you’d assume would be the go-to character to root for, has a history of torture and murder, and in fact might have the highest body count by the end of the film. ‘Good or bad’, ‘hero or villain’? In the world of The Hateful Eight, and by extension spaghetti westerns as a whole, it’s more ‘the one holding the gun is right, the one not holding a gun is wrong’. Why else would folks like Clint Eastwood get to just walk into some town, murder those they decided deserved to die, and then just leave without any repercussions? In the actual American West things were much more controlled and subject to the rule of law, but in the American West of cinema, the only rule is might makes right.

     The Hateful Eight is also a violent film as I mentioned, and in that way it is textbook western. These are movies about people with guns shooting at each other after all, even if you tried to fairy tale it up with folks just falling over with no blood it’s a genre built on death. However, The Hateful Eight isn’t just a violent movie, just as it wasn’t just dealing with the harsh realities of frontier life. It’s hyper-violent in that tried-and true Tarantino fashion, with folks vomiting blood, heads exploding, and other such horrific acts upon the human body. Honestly it reaches a point where it ends up becoming comical, and you end up wondering if Robert Rodriguez somehow got into the editing booth, but it makes sense. These are absurdly awful people after all, it makes sense that the violence they inflict on each other are similarly excessive. Go big or go home has been the motto of Quentin Tarantino’s entire film career upto this point, that it would be the basis for his final film is pretty much a given.

     The music is amazing, as is expected from Ennio Morricone returning to the work that made him a legend. Tarantino’s writing and characterization is on par with the rest of his work, again as expected, although there are moments where I think he might have passed ‘witty’ and dipped into ‘pretentiousness’ around the time folks start dying. Overall I had a very fun time with The Hateful Eight, and I have no problem tossing my recommendation into the pile. It’s funny, it’s violent, it’s crazy, and when Halloween rolls around that’s what you want in a movie. If this is truly the last film Quentin Tarantino ever makes, I’d say he left on a high note.

A Brief Return

       If anyone regularly reads this blog, I'm sorry that I dropped off the face of the Earth there with no warning. Hadn't planned...