King Kong
—1. Overview (multimedia)
—2. Overview Basic (dial up speed)
—3. Reviews and Blogs
—4. Cast and Crew
—5. Photo Pages
—6. Trailers, Clips, DVDs, Books, Soundtrack
—7. Posters
—8. Production Notes
—9. Spiritual Connections
—10. Presentation Downloads
KING KONG really knows how to emote. He’s meaner, louder, and scarier than previous incarnations, but also kinder and gentler too. Fanatics will love that Kong roars and beats his chest yet again in Peter Jackson’s epic retelling of the great ape. Slamming the senses with thrilling action, the movie suffers from some weak dialogue and characterization.
Jackson has said one reason he makes big special-effects laden epics is that he wants to keep his staff employed at Weta. When the need for special effects, dries up, work for his staff dries up. He needs to keep making extensive pictures to feed the mouths of many families.
It seems the mantle of special effects master has been passed from James Cameron and George Lucas to Jackson. Indeed, KONG seems to have as many CGI objects and backgrounds as any STAR WARS picture. All three have suffered from cheesy dialogue. But Jackson is slightly better in creating believable characters. His actors seem to inhabit their roles more convincingly. Here all three leads, Jack Black, as showman and conniver filmmaker Carl Denham, Adrian Brody as the swooning playwright, Jack Driscoll, and Naomi Watts, as struggling actress Anne Darrow emote with game faces and winning enthusiasm. They seem to be really enjoying playing their roles. This positivism goes a long way because their words and dialogue often suffer. It seems Jackson is so preoccupied with the special effects that he forgot about telling a great story with believable speech.
But, the real star of this picture is Kong himself. Andy Serkis, who modeled the mannerisms for RINGS Gollum, creates Kong’s body language and facial expressions that seems authentically simian, but also strangely human. KONG, the ape, strikes the right Anthropomorphist balance.
And, the real story isn’t about Carl or Jack, but about Anne and her platonic love for a 25 foot gorilla. Indeed, Kong is a real man, protecting his woman through thick and thin. (Lots of men could learn a few tricks from this hairy beast.) Some of the biggest thrills occur during the second act on Skull Island, where the other critters, including big bugs and dinosaurs, try to make Anne into their next meal. Kong transfers her from hand to hand to foot as he rolls, dodges, and fights off would-be predators. In fact, the fight sequence where he takes on three, count-em, three T-Rexs is one of the most thrilling action-adventure sequences ever put on film. There are definitely things in Kong that you have never, ever seen in a movie before. Kong possesses some of the very same thrills I first experienced during the opening sequence of RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK. This is truly a grand-scale action/adventure yarn in the best sense.
What Kong lacks is a hero. Carl is about as big a slime ball as you can get in a movie. Jack loves Anne, and has some honor, but his character mainly seems weak. Even the matinee idol who stars in Carl’s island movie, Bruce Baxter (Kyle Chandler), runs when the pressure mounts. When Kong goes stateside, forget about any meaningful character wrap-ups, it’s all about Kong, his climb to the top of the Empire State Building, and his struggle for survival.
At the end of the movie, Carl laments, “Beauty killed the beast� and we are supposed to give reverential awe to this statement, but it doesn’t muster any emotional punch. It doesn’t register because there is no consistent them in this movie other than women like to be protected and slime ball-capitalists will fail. This is not the sort of film with an austere beauty like TITANIC to keep the teenage girl (or boy) audience coming back again and again. I imagine some teenage boys will see KONG repeatedly for some of the action sequences, but it doesn’t carry the emotional and thematic gravitas of Jackson’s LORD OF THE RINGS trilogy.
Some a spectacle only needs to be a spectacle – something to gawk at and call visually impressive. If you have that kind of expectation going into KONG, you will not be disappointed. But, if you like your epics with more emotional and thematic meat on the bones, you might want to take your appetite elsewhere.
—Overview (multimedia)
—Reviews and Blogs
—2. Overview Basic (dial up speed)
—3. Reviews and Blogs
—4. Cast and Crew
—5. Photo Pages
—6. Trailers, Clips, DVDs, Books, Soundtrack
—7. Posters
—8. Production Notes
—9. Spiritual Connections
—10. Presentation Downloads
KING KONG really knows how to emote. He’s meaner, louder, and scarier than previous incarnations, but also kinder and gentler too. Fanatics will love that Kong roars and beats his chest yet again in Peter Jackson’s epic retelling of the great ape. Slamming the senses with thrilling action, the movie suffers from some weak dialogue and characterization.Jackson has said one reason he makes big special-effects laden epics is that he wants to keep his staff employed at Weta. When the need for special effects, dries up, work for his staff dries up. He needs to keep making extensive pictures to feed the mouths of many families.
It seems the mantle of special effects master has been passed from James Cameron and George Lucas to Jackson. Indeed, KONG seems to have as many CGI objects and backgrounds as any STAR WARS picture. All three have suffered from cheesy dialogue. But Jackson is slightly better in creating believable characters. His actors seem to inhabit their roles more convincingly. Here all three leads, Jack Black, as showman and conniver filmmaker Carl Denham, Adrian Brody as the swooning playwright, Jack Driscoll, and Naomi Watts, as struggling actress Anne Darrow emote with game faces and winning enthusiasm. They seem to be really enjoying playing their roles. This positivism goes a long way because their words and dialogue often suffer. It seems Jackson is so preoccupied with the special effects that he forgot about telling a great story with believable speech.
But, the real star of this picture is Kong himself. Andy Serkis, who modeled the mannerisms for RINGS Gollum, creates Kong’s body language and facial expressions that seems authentically simian, but also strangely human. KONG, the ape, strikes the right Anthropomorphist balance.And, the real story isn’t about Carl or Jack, but about Anne and her platonic love for a 25 foot gorilla. Indeed, Kong is a real man, protecting his woman through thick and thin. (Lots of men could learn a few tricks from this hairy beast.) Some of the biggest thrills occur during the second act on Skull Island, where the other critters, including big bugs and dinosaurs, try to make Anne into their next meal. Kong transfers her from hand to hand to foot as he rolls, dodges, and fights off would-be predators. In fact, the fight sequence where he takes on three, count-em, three T-Rexs is one of the most thrilling action-adventure sequences ever put on film. There are definitely things in Kong that you have never, ever seen in a movie before. Kong possesses some of the very same thrills I first experienced during the opening sequence of RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK. This is truly a grand-scale action/adventure yarn in the best sense.
What Kong lacks is a hero. Carl is about as big a slime ball as you can get in a movie. Jack loves Anne, and has some honor, but his character mainly seems weak. Even the matinee idol who stars in Carl’s island movie, Bruce Baxter (Kyle Chandler), runs when the pressure mounts. When Kong goes stateside, forget about any meaningful character wrap-ups, it’s all about Kong, his climb to the top of the Empire State Building, and his struggle for survival.
At the end of the movie, Carl laments, “Beauty killed the beast� and we are supposed to give reverential awe to this statement, but it doesn’t muster any emotional punch. It doesn’t register because there is no consistent them in this movie other than women like to be protected and slime ball-capitalists will fail. This is not the sort of film with an austere beauty like TITANIC to keep the teenage girl (or boy) audience coming back again and again. I imagine some teenage boys will see KONG repeatedly for some of the action sequences, but it doesn’t carry the emotional and thematic gravitas of Jackson’s LORD OF THE RINGS trilogy.
Some a spectacle only needs to be a spectacle – something to gawk at and call visually impressive. If you have that kind of expectation going into KONG, you will not be disappointed. But, if you like your epics with more emotional and thematic meat on the bones, you might want to take your appetite elsewhere.—Overview (multimedia)
—Reviews and Blogs
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home