![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Yup, I'm talking about the Kongster folks (she says with a tip of the hat to ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
savethewave).
So I went to see this with a rather delightful Englishman I hadn't seen in a while and neither of us *hated* the movie, neither of us was knocked out by it. [Edited to Add: He actually hated the movie. I just thought it was 'eh'], I'm glad I saw it on the big screen, the est way to see a 25 foot ape *is* on a 30 foot screen. However, all rich visuals and a paper thin plot does not a great movie make.
I've been a big Naomi Watts booster since Mullholland Drive and she lives up to expectations playing a character whose motivations aren't always logical. Her Ann Darrow is still a young woman but maybe just a hair too old to play an ingenue roles. It makes sense then, that down on her luck and reduced to filching apples, she would get on the rickety ship The Venture to be in Carl Denham's movie. She's got determination with a hint of deperation. I can't say enough how Watts manages to make her character's choices feel organic.
I wish I could say as much for the other actors.
There are times when Jack Black seems like a natural as the slippery movie producer, Carl Denham. Then there are times when his bluster and grandiosity seem inappropriate and I was sitting in the theater thinking, "Hmmm, am I supposed to find this funny?" At times I found it cringeworthy.
And then there's poor Adrien Brody. Or maybe he's not so poor, he did sign of for the non-role of Jack Driscoll after all. His character is a cipher and could have been excised from the film, with few changes to the script. I understand that Jack isn't supposed to look like your typical movie hero (um, I think) but sheesh. All in all there was more chemistry between Ann and King Kong then between Ann and Jack.
There seem to be huge holes in this relationships. Alex, one of the owners of that awesome bookstore, The Racontour in lovely Metuchen, NJ made what I thought was an excellent point; for a 3 hour film, Peter Jackson had a lot of time to devote to telling the story and developing the relationships. It's too bad he didn't use it. Instead we get a thrilling, but unnecessarily long, sequence involving a deadly trek through a jungle quickly followed by another long fight sequence between Kong and 3 dinosaurs. Many of the scenes are beautiful, but a couple of them look like they were lifted straight from LOTR. A pretty sunrise won't hold your interest forever.
If there's extra footage laying (lying, lieing, ACK!) around somewhere I'd love to see this 3 hour movie with less beautifully well executed CGI and more screen time devoted to exploring the human relationships: Between Jimmy, a young sailor, and Hayes, the first mate who seem to be a father figure for him (Um, yeah, father figure, that's it. Look, this ain't Brokeback Mountain.) or the Lumpy the cook and Choy. Let me *see* Ann fall in love with Jack....or any other human being for that matter. (Her attachment to the monkey was downright creepy at times.) I don't need to see King Kong spinning on ice with a seemingly besotted Ann in his palm. I'd rather see what his reaction would be to seeing a bunch of normal size apes locked up in the zoo.
So it was an entertaining 3 hours but and hour later I was hungry for more. (BTW, parents: leave the kiddies at home unless you enjoy your children having nightmares. There's some gruesome violence in this film that makes the PG-13 rating well deserved.)
On the $10.00 scale I'm giving King Kong $7.25. It's worth the trip to the theater but catch a matinee if you can.
savethewave). So I went to see this with a rather delightful Englishman I hadn't seen in a while and neither of us *hated* the movie, neither of us was knocked out by it. [Edited to Add: He actually hated the movie. I just thought it was 'eh'], I'm glad I saw it on the big screen, the est way to see a 25 foot ape *is* on a 30 foot screen. However, all rich visuals and a paper thin plot does not a great movie make.
I've been a big Naomi Watts booster since Mullholland Drive and she lives up to expectations playing a character whose motivations aren't always logical. Her Ann Darrow is still a young woman but maybe just a hair too old to play an ingenue roles. It makes sense then, that down on her luck and reduced to filching apples, she would get on the rickety ship The Venture to be in Carl Denham's movie. She's got determination with a hint of deperation. I can't say enough how Watts manages to make her character's choices feel organic.
I wish I could say as much for the other actors.
There are times when Jack Black seems like a natural as the slippery movie producer, Carl Denham. Then there are times when his bluster and grandiosity seem inappropriate and I was sitting in the theater thinking, "Hmmm, am I supposed to find this funny?" At times I found it cringeworthy.
And then there's poor Adrien Brody. Or maybe he's not so poor, he did sign of for the non-role of Jack Driscoll after all. His character is a cipher and could have been excised from the film, with few changes to the script. I understand that Jack isn't supposed to look like your typical movie hero (um, I think) but sheesh. All in all there was more chemistry between Ann and King Kong then between Ann and Jack.
There seem to be huge holes in this relationships. Alex, one of the owners of that awesome bookstore, The Racontour in lovely Metuchen, NJ made what I thought was an excellent point; for a 3 hour film, Peter Jackson had a lot of time to devote to telling the story and developing the relationships. It's too bad he didn't use it. Instead we get a thrilling, but unnecessarily long, sequence involving a deadly trek through a jungle quickly followed by another long fight sequence between Kong and 3 dinosaurs. Many of the scenes are beautiful, but a couple of them look like they were lifted straight from LOTR. A pretty sunrise won't hold your interest forever.
If there's extra footage laying (lying, lieing, ACK!) around somewhere I'd love to see this 3 hour movie with less beautifully well executed CGI and more screen time devoted to exploring the human relationships: Between Jimmy, a young sailor, and Hayes, the first mate who seem to be a father figure for him (Um, yeah, father figure, that's it. Look, this ain't Brokeback Mountain.) or the Lumpy the cook and Choy. Let me *see* Ann fall in love with Jack....or any other human being for that matter. (Her attachment to the monkey was downright creepy at times.) I don't need to see King Kong spinning on ice with a seemingly besotted Ann in his palm. I'd rather see what his reaction would be to seeing a bunch of normal size apes locked up in the zoo.
So it was an entertaining 3 hours but and hour later I was hungry for more. (BTW, parents: leave the kiddies at home unless you enjoy your children having nightmares. There's some gruesome violence in this film that makes the PG-13 rating well deserved.)
On the $10.00 scale I'm giving King Kong $7.25. It's worth the trip to the theater but catch a matinee if you can.
