I’m posting from Rockville, Maryland where I am spending Christmas with Devin’s family. I love and miss my family back in Chicago - even though this is the 2nd Christmas I’ve spent apart from them, it’s just as tough. Thankfully, the Kalinocks make it as easy as it could ever be.
…peace on Earth, goodwill to men, women, children and all of God’s creatures…
I was just listening to Vince Guaraldi Trio - O Tannenbaum
Posted in Personal
Almost a week later amid disappointing business results, I am still pondering over King Kong. I added the one sheet to the “Recommended” section immediately after seeing the film and linked it to Roger Ebert’s review. He wrote a very-well thought out review which reflected my own thoughts on the film pretty accurately.
More time has passed and obviously, Kong is not going to be the next Titanic. A friend asked me if I thought it was because it was overhyped. The critical reviews of Kong have been good - great for a summer blockbuster release but tame of a time of year when expectations run high for the next award circuit champion. Indeed, overhyped is a possibility - then again, you need a strong opening and a dramatic dropoff to agree with that statement and if anything, the film is growing momentum.
My main criticism of the film is that it did not need to be 3 hours. I am a movie nut who’s girlfriend is a Kong-nut which meant I was going to see the first screening possible - but I tried to get out of the midnight screen only for the run time. Why is that? Others called out my hypocracy because I was there for the midnight screens of Lord of The Rings but the idea of getting home at 3:30/4am to go to work the next day didn’t seem as compelling as it once had.
I believe that 3 hours covering one plot line and a handful of characters may not be compelling to a lot of people…unless those characters are played by Leo Dicaprio/Kate Winslet and it’s a romance story (Kong ‘05 may not be a love story but is definitely not a romance story). Having seen the film, I can identify plenty of areas where the fat could have been trimmed - namely the scenes involving the first mate of the Venture and the younger shipmate. I also think Jackson had too much of his trademark slo-mo-shakey-push-in cam shots that he used with great effect in the LOTR series.
In film school, I learned what happens when you make a film, concerned only for an audience of one - yourself. They call it “cinemasterbation” (actually they called it masterbation, I call it cinemasterbation). It is obvious that Kong ‘33 had a profound effect on Peter Jackson and his career - I understand what it’s like to receive inspiration and want to recreate the genius not to mention best it. However, I think Peter Jackson got this one more Fanboy than expert story telling in the medium of film - exactly the opposite criticism he received for LOTR.
Fortunately for my enjoyment of the film, I’m a Fanboy too.
Kong ‘05 is not the greatest film in the worrr-horld…it was just a tribute.
I was just listening to Tenacious D - Tribute
Posted in Film