This Shit Is Bananas!
In light of King Kong's "disappointing" opening weekend ($66 million ain't exactly chump change, unless you spent $200 million to make your movie--DOH!), I've decided to take further steps to convince more people to go see this wonderful film. But rather than listen to me go on about it again, I'd like you to welcome Chazzbot's first guest columnist, Stefan.
Stefan is a colleague and drinking partner of mine from Bowling Green who knows more than you about film. In an e-mail exchange last week, we were trying to persuade another of our BG colleagues, Lisa, to go see the film, and I thought Stefan's comments were particularly enlightening (and not just because he agrees with me).
Let us now ponder Stefan's wisdom:
I went to see King Kong yesterday after having rewatched the original Tuesday night. As a kid, my memories are more about the dinosaurs and wondering what other creatures might have lived on the island than most of the other stuff. I guess my stop-motion memories are more Harryhausen oriented.
Anyhow, I found the remake to be very good, although not stark raving wonderful like critics have been falling all over themselves to say. There were many homages to the original film, including a couple of scenes where the now-outdated dialogue of the original is spoofed and another scene making fun of the depiction of the original's racially charged natives. I found this sort of updating well integrated into the new version and not very distracting, so that made for a well done screenplay, plus if you have no familiarity with the original you may miss it altogether. I agree with Charlie that the island natives were a little too "leftover orc" mixed with a devolved sort of paganism, which in the context of the island being a lost, fragmented civilization it makes sense, but Jackson et al I think went out of their way to be more racially sensitive even if the minority characters did eventually all die (I truly half-expected the black first mate to live because he kept his wits about him when everyone else was going bonkers).
Naomi Watts gave a wonderful performance and for me was perhaps the best part of the film. The fact that she was doing this against a green screen with either no actors or motion capture guys is even more impressive. Jack Black was okay, but a tad too restrained for me, and Adrian Brody's character of Jack Driscoll the writer seemed problematic in the way he was written (how postmodern). Anyhow, Watts emoted and made Kong a more "real" character for me. So on to the digital effects, which were very good, although not as amazing as some people have made out. Yes, Kong is impressive, but certain things here and there could have used some more work (I doubt that the vast majority of the viewing public will notice this). Keep your eyes peeled for Jackson and fellow director Frank Darabont as airplane gunners. Anyhow, back to the digital effects: I would like to put a moritorium on digital waterfalls in cinema for the rest of the 21st century (for introducing them, I blame George Lucas). Also, I was in the same screening room where we all saw SW: Ep III, and I had to complain about the same sound issues (channels dropping out, popping) to the management, who looked completely bored that I was asking them to check into some problems. It's so hard to get good help these days.
It's a 3 hour film, but it doesn't feel that long at all, which I'll also chalk up to a good script and some decent editing. I will second Charlie's suggestion to see it on as big a screen as possible (and preferably one with nice, cushy seating). SH
There you have it, folks. Now that so many people are enjoying vacation time, there should be little excuse not to spare 3 of your Earth hours to check out the wonders of King Kong.
Stefan is a colleague and drinking partner of mine from Bowling Green who knows more than you about film. In an e-mail exchange last week, we were trying to persuade another of our BG colleagues, Lisa, to go see the film, and I thought Stefan's comments were particularly enlightening (and not just because he agrees with me).
Let us now ponder Stefan's wisdom:
I went to see King Kong yesterday after having rewatched the original Tuesday night. As a kid, my memories are more about the dinosaurs and wondering what other creatures might have lived on the island than most of the other stuff. I guess my stop-motion memories are more Harryhausen oriented.
Anyhow, I found the remake to be very good, although not stark raving wonderful like critics have been falling all over themselves to say. There were many homages to the original film, including a couple of scenes where the now-outdated dialogue of the original is spoofed and another scene making fun of the depiction of the original's racially charged natives. I found this sort of updating well integrated into the new version and not very distracting, so that made for a well done screenplay, plus if you have no familiarity with the original you may miss it altogether. I agree with Charlie that the island natives were a little too "leftover orc" mixed with a devolved sort of paganism, which in the context of the island being a lost, fragmented civilization it makes sense, but Jackson et al I think went out of their way to be more racially sensitive even if the minority characters did eventually all die (I truly half-expected the black first mate to live because he kept his wits about him when everyone else was going bonkers).
Naomi Watts gave a wonderful performance and for me was perhaps the best part of the film. The fact that she was doing this against a green screen with either no actors or motion capture guys is even more impressive. Jack Black was okay, but a tad too restrained for me, and Adrian Brody's character of Jack Driscoll the writer seemed problematic in the way he was written (how postmodern). Anyhow, Watts emoted and made Kong a more "real" character for me. So on to the digital effects, which were very good, although not as amazing as some people have made out. Yes, Kong is impressive, but certain things here and there could have used some more work (I doubt that the vast majority of the viewing public will notice this). Keep your eyes peeled for Jackson and fellow director Frank Darabont as airplane gunners. Anyhow, back to the digital effects: I would like to put a moritorium on digital waterfalls in cinema for the rest of the 21st century (for introducing them, I blame George Lucas). Also, I was in the same screening room where we all saw SW: Ep III, and I had to complain about the same sound issues (channels dropping out, popping) to the management, who looked completely bored that I was asking them to check into some problems. It's so hard to get good help these days.
It's a 3 hour film, but it doesn't feel that long at all, which I'll also chalk up to a good script and some decent editing. I will second Charlie's suggestion to see it on as big a screen as possible (and preferably one with nice, cushy seating). SH
There you have it, folks. Now that so many people are enjoying vacation time, there should be little excuse not to spare 3 of your Earth hours to check out the wonders of King Kong.
posted by Chazzbot at 5:05 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home