Overheard in the lobby after the film, "She'll never love Jack as much as she did Kong" (said without a trace of irony by an earnest art school grad student looking type)
Damn good popcorn film. Not the greatest film ever. Not a bad film. Like all Peter Jackson films, at heart this film has heart.
That's what sets his big huge epic pictures from say the latest big huge epics produced by Bruckheimer or Lucas or Spielberg.
Jackson likes faces and understands eyes. So many directors seem to have forgotten the simple fact that there is nothing more effective in telling a story or as capabable of expressing complexity than the human face.
Jackson gives Kong a very human face (Andy Serkis is da man) and exceedingly expressive eyes.
The movie's probably too long, (yet it moves just fine), the CGI can be obvious (but always serves the story), and you have to suspend a huge heap of disbelief (but that's what tales by the firelight of the campfire are all about).
This is not a remake for the sake of a quick buck made on the name of some previous work. This was clearly a labor of love meant to use the bones of the original to create a new film that can stand on its own as well as amplify the original. Beautiful. Beautiful. Beautiful.
Side note. NOT AGAIN. What the world needs now is NOT another Crockett and Tubbs. Michael Mann himself has decided to rape the memory of his pastel colored cop show. Colin 'I really am bigger than a leprechaun, no really' Farrell and Jamie 'I'm not just an actor, I'm a singer, and did I mention I won an OSCAR' Foxx star. He shot it digital like his last two films (Collateral, Ali) and it might be decent, but at this point I DON"T CARE. Receipts are down in 2005 compared to 2004 and 2006 is shaping up to be worse. Too many sequels, remakes, retreads and slapdash films made to capitalize on a name and not for the sake of telling a story. This does not feel like an original work meant to stand on its own or amplify the original. This looks like a studio desperate for a hit exploiting a title for its recognition value.
They've mined the 50s, 60s and 70s and now turn to the 80s, what remakes will the 90s spawn? (Roseanne the Movie?) (Seinfeld the Movie?) (NYPD Blue?) (ER?) (An Armageddon remake!?!)
14 December 2005
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Definitely, we do not need Crockett and Tubbs.
You have made the film sound like something that would be good to check out, in the proper mood.
I'm feeling a bit of deja vu since I so very, very clearly recall the LAST time it was re-made--remember the absolute dog that featured Jessica Lange? Who was truly embarrassing in that remake, but went on to become quite the fine actress indeed.
And ... one more thing ...
meme-tagged.
It's really Pooh's fault, but my responsibility, of course.
Well, considering that MI-3 and Poseidon were also previewed (along with Miami Vice) before Kong (spectacular...), the Vice was no worse than the third worst looking remake...
Another feature of the Arclight is that they have NO non trailer commercials and they limit the number of trailers (which have long since stopped being shown after features, so I should probably use the word preview when referring to them) and for King Kong they only had the NBC/Universal attached to the print trailer for Miami Vice, so I missed out on all the others.
(so next year, Wicker Man, Pink Panther, Poseidon Adventure, MI:III, Miami Vice, Lavender Hill Mob, Get Smart, etc., etc., etc.)
I don't know what's worse remaking bad stuff, or remaking good stuff.
I'm thinking Michael Mann will go all 'Brokeback' on Miami Vice and make the homoerotic subtext of the original series an explicit story in the film,. . . . .or not.
I don't know what's worse remaking bad stuff, or remaking good stuff.
It's not the remaking previous work that's bad. All of the famous Greek tragedy writers were working from the same set of stories, after all. It's just making BAD work that sucks. A remake should add something to the original, and more than just color. (Remember that shot-for-shot remake of Psycho?)
Hollywood's problem is that most of the creative people seem to be working on the technical issues. We're just living in an age of lousy story-tellers. Not surprising for an age that prides itself on being real and ironic detachment. No room left for magic.
Post a Comment