Monday, December 26, 2005
King Kong
10. A soft 10, perhaps, as you may not need to see this several times in the theater, but by god, I'd be happy to sit through this 3 hour & 40 minute bladder buster two or three times, and I'll probably want the Directorzilla Edition DVD.
I was prepared to say Peter Jackson was a one-trick pony with the Lord of the Rings trilogy (certainly a 10 on the MC Scale, btw), but he clearly proves he has a creative eye and perfect perception of production depth with King Kong. This thing embodies the word "spectacle" (and I suppose, by extension, "spectacular"). I've seen a lot of movies in my days, and I've gotten pretty jaded to cinematic magic, but Jackson produces a sense of scale and vertigo in this film that had me checking my balancing in my seat... many times. I feel enriched knowing I have seen a version of Kong, dedicated to the original story, done as well as it will ever be done.
Naomi Watts is terrific and deserves an Oscar nod come January (though she probably won't get one). Adrien Brody is.... good. While I like Jack Black as a comedic actor, he's really miscast in this film. (The story behind his casting, that he was cast at the insistance of Jackson's children, is somewhat infurating.... I smell the distinctive tang of George Lucas.) A more serious actor would have done the role better service. (I don't know who exactly ....Anthony Hopkins? ....Steve Buschemi? ....Philip Seymour Hoffman?)
Don't be lured into seeing this film based on the advertising that it's as much a romance as a monster flick. (It's not. By any stretch of the imagination.) Go see it because it's fantastic.
¶ 8:03 PM
10. A soft 10, perhaps, as you may not need to see this several times in the theater, but by god, I'd be happy to sit through this 3 hour & 40 minute bladder buster two or three times, and I'll probably want the Directorzilla Edition DVD.
I was prepared to say Peter Jackson was a one-trick pony with the Lord of the Rings trilogy (certainly a 10 on the MC Scale, btw), but he clearly proves he has a creative eye and perfect perception of production depth with King Kong. This thing embodies the word "spectacle" (and I suppose, by extension, "spectacular"). I've seen a lot of movies in my days, and I've gotten pretty jaded to cinematic magic, but Jackson produces a sense of scale and vertigo in this film that had me checking my balancing in my seat... many times. I feel enriched knowing I have seen a version of Kong, dedicated to the original story, done as well as it will ever be done.
Naomi Watts is terrific and deserves an Oscar nod come January (though she probably won't get one). Adrien Brody is.... good. While I like Jack Black as a comedic actor, he's really miscast in this film. (The story behind his casting, that he was cast at the insistance of Jackson's children, is somewhat infurating.... I smell the distinctive tang of George Lucas.) A more serious actor would have done the role better service. (I don't know who exactly ....Anthony Hopkins? ....Steve Buschemi? ....Philip Seymour Hoffman?)
Don't be lured into seeing this film based on the advertising that it's as much a romance as a monster flick. (It's not. By any stretch of the imagination.) Go see it because it's fantastic.
¶ 8:03 PM
