Well, I caught King Kong this afternoon. And my take on it isn't much more favorable than Shocho's.
It may be coming out in December, Oscar-bait season. It may be a remake of a classic film respected in cinema history. It may be directed by Peter Jackson, with the credibility of an Oscar win and several nominations behind him. But don't let any of that fool you...
This was a big, dumb, summer action movie.
The film flailed about like a fire hose with no one holding onto the end, moving from "set piece" to "set piece." You could make an argument that each piece in and of itself was pretty dazzling. They certainly looked cool -- no one could fault the production values or effects of this movie. And I'm not saying that the sequences were all boring. A few were actually pretty tense.
But they were big and dumb. No real sense of story... just "run for your lives, everyone." The level of writing, directing, and acting may all have been far superior to the prequel Star Wars films, but King Kong was no less a "stare at the green screen" waste of time. And a lot of time at that. Even when a sequence did come along that was somewhat engaging, it was only to be followed by hours more movie -- 187 minutes in all.
On the strength of the look of the movie, and on those moments that do work, I'll rate the film a C overall. Even though for most of the time, "Z" is the letter I had in mind.
2 comments:
Following Shocho's confusion, if so many "amateur" reviewers like yourself aren't so crazy about this, why are so many astute professional reviewers fawning over this one? I really had no interest in seeing it in the theatre due to its length and its being advertised much like a summer blockbuster.
I read Roger Ebert's review, and he says that the fact that Ann doesn't want the monkey killed at the end is new territory. I think that's right, although I'd have to watch the original movie to be sure. As I remember, Fay Wray never warmed up to the big lug, and was simply terrified the whole way. Naomi begged for them to not kill him, and that adds to the pathos and makes the connection between the two stronger.
So, like those who answer charges that Tolkien didn't make up anything new by saying: Hobbits, the answer to those who say that Jackson brought nothing new to the story is: She loved the monkey.
Otherwise, the flick was a real snooze, I agree. Although the monkey effects were stupendous.
As a Universal exec pointed out today apologizing for the lack of blockbuster business, there is no King Kong franchise or literary property. Just a legion of well paid critics.
Post a Comment