What's so awful about KING KONG?
Don't get me wrong--I'm a big Peter Jackson fan. Loved LOTR--especially Fellowship. I even enjoyed The Frighteners.
But Kong left me cold. And one word explains it all: Editing. Or maybe Pacing, which is a function of Editing.
The original Kong was barely 100 minutes long. And it moved--fast. No wasted shots (not when each effects sequence took weeks to film in stop-motion!) No superfluous characters. And what you got is a classic that inspired more film-makers than almost any other (it's continually mentioned by directors).
The new Kong was three hours--almost twice as long. The initial NY sequences were great--the zoo, the Depression-era allusions--but it took much to long to get on the boat. I believe Skull Island was reached in about 45 minutes at the earliest. So, when two hours later Kong is scaling the Empire State Building, I was fatigued; I was tired--and wishing Kong could climb a little faster.
A bunch of over-wrought, overly-lengthy sequences come to mind: the slow typing of the words "Skull Island," the endless slo-mo of the natives, the endless falling of the Brachyosaurus's, the truly endless V. Rex (yes, not a T. Rex but a V. Rex) fight, the incredibly endless chase through NY after Kong escapes (which includes an odd little skate on a Central Park pond!).
It all made for a 3 out of 5 star, 3 hour film that's still pretty good despite its faults (I've watched it twice). And yet to this Peter Jackson fan it was a disappointment, for I wanted to love this film, buy the multi-DVD set, watch it a time or two a month for a year. It was not to be, however.
But you know what? I think it's salvagable. Somewhere there's a 5 out of 5 star film lurking within that 3 hour one. Only this one's only about 2 1/2 hours long. And Jack Black isn't a cynical SOB but a hypo-manic, overly optimistic sort like the original Carl Denham was back in '33. There are so many stunning sequences and shots in Jackson's film, I don't understand how it could have been so misassembled and mis-directed; for one, I don't see how Naomi Watts could have been so damn good but Adrien Brody so damn dull. Was PJ blinded by the effects shots? Was it too much for him--had he gotten to close to the material, having worshipped at Kong's alter since he was a child?
In my personal film disappointment history, it is exceeded only by Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome. And that's sayin' somethin'!
Let's hope he doesn't tackle Godzilla. Oh wait--Roland Emmerich already butchered that one.
Don't get me wrong--I'm a big Peter Jackson fan. Loved LOTR--especially Fellowship. I even enjoyed The Frighteners.
But Kong left me cold. And one word explains it all: Editing. Or maybe Pacing, which is a function of Editing.
The original Kong was barely 100 minutes long. And it moved--fast. No wasted shots (not when each effects sequence took weeks to film in stop-motion!) No superfluous characters. And what you got is a classic that inspired more film-makers than almost any other (it's continually mentioned by directors).
The new Kong was three hours--almost twice as long. The initial NY sequences were great--the zoo, the Depression-era allusions--but it took much to long to get on the boat. I believe Skull Island was reached in about 45 minutes at the earliest. So, when two hours later Kong is scaling the Empire State Building, I was fatigued; I was tired--and wishing Kong could climb a little faster.
A bunch of over-wrought, overly-lengthy sequences come to mind: the slow typing of the words "Skull Island," the endless slo-mo of the natives, the endless falling of the Brachyosaurus's, the truly endless V. Rex (yes, not a T. Rex but a V. Rex) fight, the incredibly endless chase through NY after Kong escapes (which includes an odd little skate on a Central Park pond!).
It all made for a 3 out of 5 star, 3 hour film that's still pretty good despite its faults (I've watched it twice). And yet to this Peter Jackson fan it was a disappointment, for I wanted to love this film, buy the multi-DVD set, watch it a time or two a month for a year. It was not to be, however.
But you know what? I think it's salvagable. Somewhere there's a 5 out of 5 star film lurking within that 3 hour one. Only this one's only about 2 1/2 hours long. And Jack Black isn't a cynical SOB but a hypo-manic, overly optimistic sort like the original Carl Denham was back in '33. There are so many stunning sequences and shots in Jackson's film, I don't understand how it could have been so misassembled and mis-directed; for one, I don't see how Naomi Watts could have been so damn good but Adrien Brody so damn dull. Was PJ blinded by the effects shots? Was it too much for him--had he gotten to close to the material, having worshipped at Kong's alter since he was a child?
In my personal film disappointment history, it is exceeded only by Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome. And that's sayin' somethin'!
Let's hope he doesn't tackle Godzilla. Oh wait--Roland Emmerich already butchered that one.
posted by I. Michael Koontz | 5:55 PM
3 Comments:
Yes, Tina Turner was in Thunderdome and that, I suppose should hsve been my first warning that it stunk.
The second would have been the presence of a 'little person' riding the shoulders of a huge mute person, the combo being one of the main forces for evil in the film.
It's just awful compared to the Road Warrior which turned out to be one of the most influential films of the 80's.
I have a great story about seeing The RW in the Englert Theater in Iowa City, which I'll save for another post.
The Roland Emmerich 'Godzilla' was a HUGE disappointment, partly due to horrible casting (like the usually stellar Broderick) and partly to a completely dips--t plot ending with the laying of Godzilla eggs in Madison Square Garden.
It sounds terrible--and it was. Id say "Godzilla' laid an egg alright.
The RW is a film that has everything: beautiful doomed women, feral children, whirly-bird pilots with bad teeth, a great dog, and S & M-accoutrement-wearing baddies that have same sex partners.
Oddly, when the main baddie's same-sex partner gets killed, the viewer feels genuinely sorry for him; it really serves to humanize the character in a way that most bad-guys don't get in films of this type. Rather a bold move.
Just another reason why The RW is a classic.
In some ways, Kong was the best actor in the film (he seemed more lively to me than Adrien Brody, for example).
For me, I think Kong failed because I had very high expectations that remained unmet. For others, who went in without any expectations--like "Grease" I suspect--it was probably a lot of fun. Still, I suspect that most movie-goers expected more from Kong given its high-profile brand-name, director, and PR campaign, which might account for its fairly disappointing US box office showing.
Post a Comment
<< Home