At the theater I went to what sounded like a five year old started crying at the first decapitation.
No problems where I went, there were no kids at all. I could see some confusion as the last couple of wolverine movies were much lighter and less gorier. The theater did a good job letting people know this was a violent rated R movie with a huge promotional sign that said so right as you walked in.
Wow, saw Logan last night (was great) but it didn't even cross my mind that kids could watch it. I had to go look that up because I'll be honest was ignorant of the differences between your ratings system and our BBFC over here in UK.
Over there Wolverine was R-rated? Which means a child of any age able to watch as long as accompanied by an adult? Just to check got this correct. Mind blown and not in a good way.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not taking the moral high ground here at all. If we had the same rules over here I'm certain some idiot parents would take their kids to watch something like Logan.
Sensibly however we don't get that option. What the BBFC says is law, Logan is rated at 15 and "No one younger than 15 may see a 15 film in a cinema".
The equivalent over here I guess would be 12A on the accompanied by an adult thing, which covers for example in superhero movies something like Cap Civil War.
I'm writing myself into feeling dumb here as I had assumed Rated-R was direct equivalent of our 15, no kids allowed and NC-17 was for stronger fare like 18 over here.
I'm also aware after waffling there that I'm calling my own parents idiots (they're not) because they used to rent us out 15/18 cert videos waaay before they were appropriate and as a kid I was absolutely fine with that
Anyhow wow again on Logan, was Deadpool the same and many young uns in the theatres for that? Was a 15 over here if memory serves.
While i would've loved to see the rampaging, dna diluted, mayhem of Bruce Banner's spawn that was in the Old Man Logan comics. I appreciate what they did here and this direction made this a much more touching and human story. Much better than a revenge tale.
I'm also curious with the way they ended it with the children if they may be considering them the New Mutants. It definitely gets them out of the way of the mess that was the Singer's and Vaughn's timelines.
So the theater personnel don't have any saying in who gets in to see a given movie? Over here the ratings are for ages 7, 12 and 16, and for these three years can be taken off when a guardian is present. The next are 16 and 18 and they're strict. I've seen teenagers being turned away from 16 or 18 movies. The ratings are set in law and enforcing them is mandatory for the theaters.
Hoping to see Logan this week. I'm pretty stoked as quite a few people who's opinion I value rate it over Deadpool in general superhero-movies category. Which is just mind boggling, because Deadpool was awesome.
Spoiler:I'm also curious with the way they ended it with the children if they may be considering them the New Mutants. It definitely gets them out of the way of the mess that was the Singer's and Vaughn's timelines.
Might be, we were discussing this on the way home. Though I am now confused, I had in the back of my mind that New Mutants might have been pegged as a possible spin off TV show? (which I think would be a cool follow on to how this film ends). However looking it up, New Mutants is down here and there online as a more light hearted movie about the first graduates from the Academy, and on IMDb says going to star James McAvoy - that info is probably all random conjecture - so dunno...
There is nothing to be conflicted about. Eleven is way too young for what is in this film. And we are not just talking language and violence, and there is no sex.
Not too spoilery, but maybe spoilers enough for some, reasons:
Spoiler:There are themes of death and suicide and torture of both adults and children. Several unexpected and explicitly violent deaths of good people. The violence is not bloody, so much as it is realistic and harsh. Laura is a badass, but her fighting scenes are pretty horrific.
There are not many films that are so violent and include children in the violence, committed both to and by them.
I'm serious. My thought as I was leaving the film were the parents and adults that brought young kids to this film were assholes. At the very least they should have left and taken them home once it became clear.
I don't disagree with anything that you've said, and I like to think my niece is intelligent for her age, but she's also not as mature as she could be or should be. She's got a surprising comprehension of serious matters, and I think what surprises me most is she loves to help people. She's always asking her mom if she can volunteer for various functions so that she can help do some good. So in some ways, I feel like she's mature enough to understand a lot of what's going on.
On the other hand... she's gonna walk out of there giddy about a lot of the violence. It's likely she'll really enjoy this movie for all the right things as well, but she won't understand what those are. In the end, though, Alien: Resurrection is still her favorite of the four films of the franchise, and that indicates to me that her tastes are shifted towards things like action, violence, and the fact that it's the film where Sigourney Weaver is kicking ass and taking names.
I'm trying to put myself in her shoes as a kid, because I was actually her age when I first saw the original Ghost in the Shell. In hindsight, I was definitely not old enough to understand that film, and when I became older it was almost like seeing something entirely new. I dunno. There's a part of me that doesn't want to condescend to her, especially since at that age kids are going to see and watch stuff sneakily anyway (Hell for all I know she's watched YouTube videos discussing it in detail), but at the same time my feelings towards her cussing are: you don't do it in front of adults, you do it behind their backs. I never told her this, but to me it's just the reality of growing up. So maybe films like Logan are the same thing.
I suppose if I'm over-thinking it this much, it's better she doesn't see it. Though ultimately that's my sister's decision. And if my sister does take my niece, then the younger brother will no doubt wonder why he can't see it, and that'll be a cluster.
ranalin wrote:Spoiler:I'm also curious with the way they ended it with the children if they may be considering them the New Mutants. It definitely gets them out of the way of the mess that was the Singer's and Vaughn's timelines.
Spoiler:Might be, we were discussing this on the way home. Though I am now confused, I had in the back of my mind that New Mutants might have been pegged as a possible spin off TV show? (which I think would be a cool follow on to how this film ends). However looking it up, New Mutants is down here and there online as a more light hearted movie about the first graduates from the Academy, and on IMDb says going to star James McAvoy - that info is probably all random conjecture - so dunno...
I was remembering the same thing. I just came back to post the IMDB info. So sadly it looks to be sticking in the 90s. Which is boring in my opinion.
Bubblefuzz wrote:ranalin wrote:Spoiler:I'm also curious with the way they ended it with the children if they may be considering them the New Mutants. It definitely gets them out of the way of the mess that was the Singer's and Vaughn's timelines.
Spoiler:Might be, we were discussing this on the way home. Though I am now confused, I had in the back of my mind that New Mutants might have been pegged as a possible spin off TV show? (which I think would be a cool follow on to how this film ends). However looking it up, New Mutants is down here and there online as a more light hearted movie about the first graduates from the Academy, and on IMDb says going to star James McAvoy - that info is probably all random conjecture - so dunno...
Spoiler:I was remembering the same thing. I just came back to post the IMDB info. So sadly it looks to be sticking in the 90s. Which is boring in my opinion.
agreed - zzz boring
Over there Wolverine was R-rated? Which means a child of any age able to watch as long as accompanied by an adult? Just to check got this correct. Mind blown and not in a good way.
So the theater personnel don't have any saying in who gets in to see a given movie? Over here the ratings are for ages 7, 12 and 16, and for these three years can be taken off when a guardian is present. The next are 16 and 18 and they're strict. I've seen teenagers being turned away from 16 or 18 movies. The ratings are set in law and enforcing them is mandatory for the theaters.
The US rating system is a voluntary system created by the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA). It's not legally enforceable in the majority of the country. The only legal restriction on films that can be shown to minors is that it's illegal to exhibit pornography to anyone under 18, and the state of Tennessee requires that minors be accompanied by an adult to see R-rated films.
All enforcement of ratings restrictions is done by the theater, and they typically focus on ticket sales rather than theater attendance. With most major chains, you cannot buy a ticket for an R-rated movie unless you're an adult, but you can usually still see the movie. Some theater chains also offer so-called "R cards" that let parents authorize their minor children to buy tickets for R-rated movies when they're unaccompanied.
Tickets for NC-17 movies will not be sold to minors, and minors will not be allowed in the theater (but again: this is not legally enforced; it's a voluntary system). But NC-17 is considered to be so unviable commercially that very few films are released with that rating, and most theaters won't screen them. Films that receive an NC-17 rating typically either recut the film and resubmit for an R rating, or they opt to release as an unrated film, which most theaters will decline to screen but those that do typically treat as an R rating. (Also, most NC-17-rated edits are typically released to home video as unrated director's cuts of the film.)
The MPAA generally places a stronger caution on sex and language than on violence, reflecting broader American cultural mores on those topics. With no sexual content that I'm aware of, Logan was likely an easy R-rating and wasn't in danger of an NC-17 (I can't find anything about it needing to be resubmitted for a lower rating). The banners and warnings about the film's adult content are, frankly, advertising more than anything else. They're advertisements that this is a super hero film for grown-ups, a prospect that's highly marketable with a certain audience. That advertisement-as-warning thing is really common in America.
Many theaters voluntarily enforce a no under 17 in R movies after 7pm or something, even with accompanying adult.
They want adults to be able to enjoy a movie without front or talking kids in a movie they shouldn't be watching anyway
The banners and warnings about the film's adult content are, frankly, advertising more than anything else. They're advertisements that this is a super hero film for grown-ups, a prospect that's highly marketable with a certain audience.
This, especially after Deadpool made gobs of money and proved you could do this.
Thanks for the explanation Clockwork. Intrigued so did a quick search to compare....
In UK when the BBFC awards a film a 15 or 18 classification this means no one younger can see the film in a cinema, even if accompanied by an adult or with parental permission. The cinema will be violating the terms of its license (issued by the local authority) if it admits under-aged children to age-restricted films.
Local authorities do have the right to ignore the BBFC classification but that is super rare, pretty much never.
So for the mainstream 12A is the golden ticket for big budget films over here. So a 15 rating for a film like Logan I'd guess would have a bigger impact on box office takings than an R-rated film over there.
Edit. Sorry to derail btw, found it interesting was all. Personally, happy have the BBFC.
young kids at logan, wonder if their parents are the same ones complaining about "the gay agenda" in beauty and the beast :/ Given the history of the ratings boards in North America my suspicion is that is probably the case.
Honestly, my take was that it was mostly nerd parents that think they are passing on their love of comic book heroes to their kids, and would proudly tell you how mature and awesome their kids are. I don't see "gay agenda" parents bringing their kids to Rated R films of any type.
I saw John Wick chapter 2 and enjoyed it. Definitely looking forward to chapter 3!
Honestly, my take was that it was mostly nerd parents that think they are passing on their love of comic book heroes to their kids, and would proudly tell you how mature and awesome their kids are. I don't see "gay agenda" parents bringing their kids to Rated R films of any type.
My take of the parents in this area that brings their kids to inappropriate movies? Its cheaper and easier than lining up a babysitter. Kids terrified and whimpering or just amok with boredom? Other audience members annoyed possibly to the point of ruining the experience? Doesn't matter, the parents got to see the film, huzzah!
Say, didja like John Wick? You're probably going to like Chapter 2, then.
Actually just watched this last night. Better than expected.
Beauty and the Beast was awesome. Really well done and the music was up to the same standards as the animated version.
And for my fellow SJWs out there, I would give props to Disney for portrayals of interracial relationships and for wrapping a gay character.
The theater I chose to see Logan at is also a bar. No children.
Beauty and the Beast was awesome. Really well done and the music was up to the same standards as the animated version.
And for my fellow SJWs out there, I would give props to Disney for portrayals of interracial relationships and for wrapping a gay character.
We just saw this and my wife who was a HUGE fan of the original, animated one was disappointed. I went to corral the kids and it was actually disappointed more than I expected.
Spoilers for more thoughts:
There was a bunch of potential. I actually liked the changes to LeFou*, the overall darker tone was interesting, and I think the bonding between Belle and Beast had a little more depth than the original.
The costuming was good. Watson was decent.
I was especially surprised that the cinematography and CGI was pretty poor. In particular, they seemed to do more cgi than practical for Beast and the movie was worse for it. Any panning or quick shot seemed out of focus. If you've seen Fury Road, it was the opposite of that for visual focus.
Note this was a standard 4K showing. No 3d or Imax.
I am shocked how high this was being reviewed.
My wife made the comment that she thinks they made the movie she would have asked for and it ended up not at all what she wanted.
My summation is that they had half a remake and half a re-imagining and did not bother to make it flow together.
* - I'm not even primarily referring to his sexuality here. They completely changed him from a buffoonish fanboy to an intelligent but conflicted fanboy/unrequited lover.
Was looking at what films were showing for the Esquire in town, and discussed going to this or the original Beauty and the Beast (probably not), Kong. We pretty much decided that Kong looked like a movie to go see in the theater and we would check out B&tB once it shows up on cable or rental.
I ended up seeing Kong: Skull Island, and my basic summary is: if you like giant monster wrestling match movies you'll have a good time. If you don't.... flip a coin?
There's definitely a lot of (over?) correction for Gareth Edwards' Godzilla flick in terms of character and monster presence. There's a lot more monster mashing than Godzilla, but there's also a lot more characters that each have personalities. The problem is those personalities are really two-dimensional, so it's more like an ensemble cast of caricatures than anything else. At some point Tom Hiddleston and Brie Larson are just playing Generic Good Guy and Gal Protagonists, but because the actors have such wonderful charisma they sell it better than most films with such generic characters.
Samuel L. Jackson got to use his PG-13 F-Bomb, though.
Actually, Samuel L's character is part of what I think is the film's greatest flaw: tonal inconsistency. There's a theme in this film about soldiers being unable to come home. This manifests in many ways, such as their demise or duty to serve, but Samuel L. Jackson's is much more psychological. The problem is that a giant monster movie keeps butting into the movie Samuel L's character is in, and that giant monster movie wants to both play it with a straight face and then kill characters in some fashion of dark comedy. There are three deaths in particular where I was torn between feeling like I was supposed to laugh and feeling like they wanted me to be upset. That some of the character deaths are also done in a fashion that seems like you're meant to be horrified continues to confuse.
In the end, the tonal confusion is not severe in execution, but odd enough that it makes the film feel sloppy. Whereas I felt comfortable Logan would be an easily recommendable movie, I think Kong is going to disappoint some while being fun for others. I don't think anyone's going to walk out saying "It's great!"
There is a post-credits stinger, though. And as a Godzilla fan, I now have a much better idea how it felt to see Samuel L. show up at the end of Iron Man talking about the Avengers initiative.
If I really liked the Edwards Godzilla, will I like Kong?
That was my question as well. I really like that Godzilla movie.
This isnt the first place I've heard the complaint that they couldn't decide what Jackson's motivations were though. Consensus seems to be that his character is wildly inconsistent.
I liked Kong a bunch. I also liked Gareth Edwards Godzilla initially. The more I think back on it and see it again not on the big screen, the more the flat characters stand out to me. I don't know if that's how I'll start to feel about Kong, but they don't do the 2014 Godzilla thing of teasing out the main attraction. I agree that the characters in Kong were kinda flat, except one great performance. That one character and the commitment to a fun ride makes me think it'll hold up. IMO it'll probably be up there with Pacific Rim, which I adore (obvs). But I know a lot of people that aren't interested in that style of movie. YMMV. I think seeing it in IMAX helps a bunch here, if you can get past 3D glasses.
This isnt the first place I've heard the complaint that they couldn't decide what Jackson's motivations were though. Consensus seems to be that his character is wildly inconsistent.
Oh I think his motivations are clear as day. I'll spoiler them just in case.
He's the soldier that "can never go home" simply because he's been at war for so long he cannot live without it. He needs an enemy. Fighting is his reason for living. He's clearly unhappy about the Vietnamese War ending, and he's clearly unhappy with the notion that they lost. He insists early on that "we didn't lose, we're retreating" or something to that effect in regards to Vietnam, but towards the end he shouts about not wanting to lose another war. While his motivations aren't clear in the way they'd be in a better movie more seriously tackling the subject matter, it's pretty clear to me that all he knows is being a soldier, having a mission, and victory. He saw an enemy in Kong, and he needed to beat it.
That's my two cents at least. The real issue is between so many characters and so many monster fights, there's not a lot of time to develop it through nuance and consistent tone.
As for whether you'd like this if you liked Gareth Edwards' film... that's... kind of hard to say? I feel like Kong is somewhere between Godzilla '14 and Pacific Rim. It doesn't take itself as seriously as Godzilla '14 and yet it's less "action figures bashing into each other" as Pacific Rim.
I'm probably not the person to ask since I'm pretty much happy with almost any giant monster movie coming out these days (Cloverfield, Godzilla '14, Pacific Rim, I like 'em all). It's hard for me to divorce my love of that stuff from the rest of the film.
I guess the best I can put it is that the characters are more generic than a Marvel film, but they're better than a DC film. So you won't like it as much as a Marvel movie but you'll like it better than a DC movie. And I guess by making that comparison it should be enough to suggest that the tone here is different from the Edwards Godzilla.
Kong: Skull Island was underwhelming. I don't expect these kinds of movies to have great narratives or nuanced characters. The monsters are the stars of the show, and everyone knows it. But I do look for some kind of spark: something creative, unexpected, or just viscerally satisfying. Skull Island didn't really have anything like that. There are a few moments that come close, but it lacked the novel perspectives of Cloverfield or Shin Godzilla, the creative world-building of Pacific Rim, or the sense of scale and crowd-pleasing surprises of Godzilla '14.
One of the things I respect about all of those other films is that they never at any point shy away from what they are. There's no embarrassment of their source materials or genre, and there's an overall effort to take the subject matter seriously and to meet it on its own terms. This isn't to say that those movies are always serious, but they at no point stop to wink at the audience about how prole the material is. Skull Island, meanwhile, seems to feel a constant need to indulge in camp and to wink at the audience about how silly this whole giant monster thing is.
It doesn't help that much of the script and direction is genuinely bad, coming across as a kaiju movie and a store brand Band of Brothers uncomfortably stitched together. The lingering, fetishistic slow motion shots of Vietnam-era American soldiers and their weaponry backed by blaring rock hits of the '70s become tiring quickly, but they occupy the bulk of the film's first half.
Like I said, there are some moments that come close to being memorable, and there's some nice photography of Kong himself. But it's telling that the most exciting part of the entire film is the end credit tease.
I'm not at all surprised by your response to the film. Interesting that what I interpreted as tonal inconsistency you refer to as embarrassment, and in a lot of ways I can see that. Perhaps it's a problem of different people of different attitudes towards the material being in charge of rewrites to the script.
And yeah, the most exciting aspect was the closing tease, but there is one thing that had my friend and I a little confused:
Why would they handle the tease the way they did? Considering the next films are all taking place after Godzilla '14, the only way Tom Hiddleston and Brie Larson or Dr. Dre and... um... randomly introduced Asian scientist could take part is in old film footage or flashbacks or something. They're being recruited, which should be part of the excitement, but there's no real way you can do any of those films without a continuity issue on your hands. And there are plenty of other ways you could have had Dr. Dre and partner going through files, perhaps briefing the Senator or something.
I found that curious, too.
The pilot on the island does make a (very) passing mention that some of the natives there don't seem to age. Future movies could still include anyone from the Skull Island cast by simply hand-waving their lack of aging as a side effect of spending time in the Hollow Earth for Monarch.
For what it's worth, there were some moments I did like:
The shots of Kong surrounded by fire were usually quite pretty. The wasted sacrifice of the guy with the grenades was an unexpected turn. And while Kong disemboweling the Big One wasn't nearly as satisfying as Godzilla breaking out its flame breath at the end of '14, it was still a nice finale for that fight.
I just wish Jackson's character and his whole crew had been cut from the movie entirely. They added so little but took away a whole lot.
Pages