Mighty Morphin Power Rangers The Movie (1995)

The new Power Rangers movie is coming out, but some of you kiddos out there might not know there was already one...in 1995.

Basically, at the height of the show's popularity, the Powers That Be (no relation to the Power Rangers) decided to put together a big screen episode of the show. As such, it doesn't disrupt the show's status-quo and adds a tertiary villain that the Rangers could defeat without turning the popular show on it's head.

The movie's villain (Ivan Ooze) captures the show's villains in a snowglobe. 

(For those that don't know, the Power Rangers show is basically "built" from footage of the heroes suited-up and shot for a Japanese show. That footage was then added to segments with the American actors.)

These parts...

...added to these parts...

...came together to make this.

The movie doesn't work that way though. Instead, it's all original footage. So, with that sort of freedom, you'd expect some risks to be taken with the story. Not so much. Instead, the first act finds a giant purple egg unearthed at a construction site...hatching the movie's villain, Ivan Ooze.

Trivia: same actor who played Belloq in Raiders of the Lost Ark

Soon after, Ooze puts the main villains on hold (in that snowglobe) and proceeds to enact his plan (based on the plot of The Stuff) to conquer humanity. He gives away his Ooze, which people eat and it mind-controls them. Don't think about it too much. The plot doesn't deserve that much contemplation.

The Ooze also makes people who eat it wear purple, for some reason.

In the end, the Rangers must fight the ultimate battle as Ivan Ooze transforms into "Terrible Mid-90s CGI Effects."

That's a fight that no one wins.

While the special effects of the film are cringe-worthy, this movie is at least faithful to the series. After all, Mighty Morphin Power Rangers was a show that embraced (and still embraces) its own cheesiness. In fact, the 1995 movie is basically a longer version of one of the episodes (which were known for their "creative" storylines). Apparently, the same can't really be said for the 2017 version.

King Kong (1976)

With the impending release of Kong: Skull Island, I thought it might be fun to take a look at previous Giant Ape movies. Obviously, I've previously covered King Kong Escapes, and the original King Kong (1933) is a classic that everyone should just go and watch. On the other hand, this 1976 remake isn't remembered as widely as the movie that inspired it, so I wanted to see why.

It can't be the cast (R to L: Auberjonois, Lange, Bridges, Grodin, and Lauter)

This King Kong (1976) attempts what the other two versions do not. It's an update set in contemporary (at the time) New York City. Subtle changes to the story result, while still keeping things on the tracks that the original set. For example, the reason for going to the island is to discover oil deposits...

...a fitting topic in the 70s

Another difference is that the Jack Driscoll character (the ship's first mate in the original 1933 movie, and a playwright in the 2005 version) is a paleoanthropologist named Jack Prescott (played by Jeff Bridges).

His beard-game got a lot stronger by the time he was in Lebowski

Finally, Kong's final battle takes place on the Twin Towers, and not on the Empire State Building. Obviously, there are some historical reverberations to this decision since 9/11.

For whatever reason, the focus of many of these Ape Movies is on the technology used to bring the ape to life. It was the same for Peter Jackson's 2005 version as well as this movie. Part of that is squarely on the fact that we've seen this story before. The audience shouldn't be terribly surprised that a Giant Ape shows up, is brought to New York to be exploited, and then dies tragically. Hopefully, Kong: Skull Island will shift this focus by shaping a new story around the giant creature.

The first movie (1933) awed audiences with its stop-motion animation. Peter Jackson's movie (2005) wowed with CGI. In the middle of those, this film won an Academy Award for special effects, but those effects haven't all aged terribly well.

For example...

Some are just your "typical 70s-era effects"

While others (that 2nd shot) are just cringe-worthy

Overall, the story is presented with heart (thanks, in large part to Jessica Lange's performance) which is slightly more than Peter Jackson's version can boast. And despite any aging special effects, it's still watchable all these years later.