King Kong--worst movie of 2005
Maybe that’s a bit extreme, but King Kong is still pretty bad. And waaaaaay too long.
Went with the family and, as usual, some of the kids friends. We were victims of high expectations: The critics were raving (raving mad, I now realize) and we loved the “Lord of the Rings” movies. Peter Jackson skillfully brought to life the epic aspects of the Tolkien stories. But King Kong ain’t an epic; it’s a popcorn movie. It's supposed to be FUN. Peter Jackson forgot that little detail and what he gave us was three fanny-numbing, joyless hours of surprisingly cheesy special effects (except for Kong), surprisingly bad dialog, chaotic action, and Adrien Brody’s schnozz.
Have I mentioned it was too long? My kids and their friends, teenage boys, the demo most prized by Hollywood, were BORED by the whole thing, even the action sequences—11 minutes of stampeding dinosaurs and 7 minutes (or was that 7 hours?) of creepy bugs chomping on unlucky extras in red shirts. I counted three bathroom breaks and one popcorn run during that scene.
The movie was also a muddled mess, the tone zinging from cartoony to pompous (well, not zinging, nothing moved any faster than plodding, except Kong). A ludicrous subplot has two characters engaged in supposedly allegorical but really pointless discussions about Conrad’s “Heart of Darkness.” Then they get eaten by giant bugs. Other characters are introduced then disappear, only to show up again to say something pithy before being squashed by rampaging dinos. Colin Hanks must’ve been on half-pay, because his character pulled the vanishing act several times (or maybe, like my kids and their pals, he got bored and took a bathroom break). It also appeared as if one character is beheaded (yeah, it’s a kid’s flick) but he appears hale and hearty later on, only to be stomped by dinosaurs. Me, I would’ve gone with beheading; faster, and with less bone snapping. But that’s just me.
Except for Kong, the characters were unappealing, paper-thin and weightless (no, I’m not talking about Naomi Watt’s perfect size 4). There was NOTHING to the characters, and as a writer I find that unforgivable. The movie can be 20 hours long and feature myriad beheadings and squashing dinos as long as the characters are interesting. Naomi Watts is gorgeous but empty (and, to digress, apparently couldn’t do ANY of her own stunts, including juggling rocks for Kong’s amusement—she simply moved her hands and they CGI’d the stones in. At which Faye Wray must be spinning in her grave--in Faye's day, an actress could cartwheel, juggle, sing, dance, smoke a cigarette with her butt, and scream in terror while still looking gorgeous!) The dreadfully miscast Adrien Brody (who decided HE's the 21st century Harrison Ford?) meets Naomi’s character in a way that was cliché when the first movie was made. Colin Hanks is wasted. Pop-eyed Jack Black looks as if he’s either channeling John Belushi or has a bad case of acid reflux. Only Kyle Chandler as an egocentric actor looks as if he’s having any fun. In fact, he almost steals the movie, except for one actor I can’t give enough props to—King Kong.
Kong was great; every moment he’s on screen is wonderful, engaging, involving. Too bad there were so many cutaways to stampeding dinosaurs and chomping bugs, too bad so much time was wasted getting to the island (one full hour—two pee breaks, one candy and soda run) to find that wonderful creature. The last hour of the movie is worth the money. You will weep—provided you’re still awake!
Janet - No power in the verse (or Skull Island) can stop me!
Went with the family and, as usual, some of the kids friends. We were victims of high expectations: The critics were raving (raving mad, I now realize) and we loved the “Lord of the Rings” movies. Peter Jackson skillfully brought to life the epic aspects of the Tolkien stories. But King Kong ain’t an epic; it’s a popcorn movie. It's supposed to be FUN. Peter Jackson forgot that little detail and what he gave us was three fanny-numbing, joyless hours of surprisingly cheesy special effects (except for Kong), surprisingly bad dialog, chaotic action, and Adrien Brody’s schnozz.
Have I mentioned it was too long? My kids and their friends, teenage boys, the demo most prized by Hollywood, were BORED by the whole thing, even the action sequences—11 minutes of stampeding dinosaurs and 7 minutes (or was that 7 hours?) of creepy bugs chomping on unlucky extras in red shirts. I counted three bathroom breaks and one popcorn run during that scene.
The movie was also a muddled mess, the tone zinging from cartoony to pompous (well, not zinging, nothing moved any faster than plodding, except Kong). A ludicrous subplot has two characters engaged in supposedly allegorical but really pointless discussions about Conrad’s “Heart of Darkness.” Then they get eaten by giant bugs. Other characters are introduced then disappear, only to show up again to say something pithy before being squashed by rampaging dinos. Colin Hanks must’ve been on half-pay, because his character pulled the vanishing act several times (or maybe, like my kids and their pals, he got bored and took a bathroom break). It also appeared as if one character is beheaded (yeah, it’s a kid’s flick) but he appears hale and hearty later on, only to be stomped by dinosaurs. Me, I would’ve gone with beheading; faster, and with less bone snapping. But that’s just me.
Except for Kong, the characters were unappealing, paper-thin and weightless (no, I’m not talking about Naomi Watt’s perfect size 4). There was NOTHING to the characters, and as a writer I find that unforgivable. The movie can be 20 hours long and feature myriad beheadings and squashing dinos as long as the characters are interesting. Naomi Watts is gorgeous but empty (and, to digress, apparently couldn’t do ANY of her own stunts, including juggling rocks for Kong’s amusement—she simply moved her hands and they CGI’d the stones in. At which Faye Wray must be spinning in her grave--in Faye's day, an actress could cartwheel, juggle, sing, dance, smoke a cigarette with her butt, and scream in terror while still looking gorgeous!) The dreadfully miscast Adrien Brody (who decided HE's the 21st century Harrison Ford?) meets Naomi’s character in a way that was cliché when the first movie was made. Colin Hanks is wasted. Pop-eyed Jack Black looks as if he’s either channeling John Belushi or has a bad case of acid reflux. Only Kyle Chandler as an egocentric actor looks as if he’s having any fun. In fact, he almost steals the movie, except for one actor I can’t give enough props to—King Kong.
Kong was great; every moment he’s on screen is wonderful, engaging, involving. Too bad there were so many cutaways to stampeding dinosaurs and chomping bugs, too bad so much time was wasted getting to the island (one full hour—two pee breaks, one candy and soda run) to find that wonderful creature. The last hour of the movie is worth the money. You will weep—provided you’re still awake!
Janet - No power in the verse (or Skull Island) can stop me!
posted by Janet at 3:55 PM
2 Comments:
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
you should have at least done your homework before ranting. fay wray never did her own screaming in king kong (1933). it was a voice stand-in. naomi watts did her own in the 2005 version.
Post a Comment
<< Home