Posted on 12/12/2005 3:21:47 PM PST by rang1995
ALL HAIL THE 'KONG'ERING HERO OF THIS KOLOSSALLY EXCITING NEW KLASSIC
By LOU LUMENICK
In this photo provided by Universal Studios, Ann Darrow (Naomi Watts) shares a quiet moment at sunrise with Kong atop the Empire State Building, whose heights he has scaled in his flight from the streets of New York City, in "King Kong." Photo: AP Photo/Universal Studios Email Archives Print Reprint
December 12, 2005 -- Rating: KING KONG The year's best movie.Running time: 188 minutes. Rated PG-13 (frightening adventure, violence, scary images). Wednesday at the Empire, the Union Square, the Chelsea West, others.
BREAK out the popcorn and prepare to be blown away. "King Kong" is the most pulse- pounding and heart-stirring romantic adventure since "Titanic."
Peter Jackson's stupendous, supersized remake not only pays loving tribute to the 1933 classic, it elaborates on the "Beauty and the Beast" story in smart, awe-inspiring ways that will have audiences repeatedly bursting into applause — and reaching for their handkerchiefs as the big ape heads for his date with destiny on the Empire State Building
Surprisingly nimble for a three-hour epic with a $207 million budget, this "Kong" spends its first 20 minutes sketching a vivid panorama of Depression-era New York, where Al Jolson is heard singing "I'm Sitting on Top of the World" as people huddle in makeshift Hoovervilles in Central Park.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
It's a Peter Jackson film, if he treated this movie with loving care he did with the Lord of the Rings movies, then this is going to be a great film to watch.
I will give Peter Jackson a chance but my expectations are low for this one.
The source material makes me wonder too. But given Peter Jackson has been wanting to make this film for nearly 2 decades, I think it will be a fun movie to watch.
I also just found out that Sir David Frost (yes, from That Was The Week That Was, for those of us old enough to remember, the Nixon interview and now going to join Al Jazeera) has gotten the rights to The Dam Busters and is going to remake it. They've gotten the permission from the family of the real people involved, which is encouraging, and have even said they must use the original score, even if they do use up to date CGI for the special effects. That could potentially be very good.
There are lots of older movies that don't stand up because of lame special effects that could stand remakes. Another I've heard about is Logan's Run. It was a big deal when it came out in 1976 then it looked so lame in comparison when Star Wars came out less than one year later.
Or forget special effects, as such, but how about redoing things like John Wayne's awful The Conqueror about Temujin (better known as Genghis Khan) with an asian, preferrably Mongol, cast? That's a story that begs to be filmed well, maybe by someone like Mel Gibson?
If Hollywood has run out of ideas they can go back, not to movies that worked but to movies that failed, not because the story was bad but because the particular film maker or technologies weren't up to the task. Think of a more recent film, Ridley Scott's truly horrendous Kingdom of Heaven which totally misrepresented the Crusades?
Hey, that's the ticket! I say we seize control of a Hollywood studio and make the kind of movies WE would like to go see!
It's true that some movies get out of date, but if they are really good--well acted, well scripted, well made--it's hard to outdo them. We have the advantage of better special effects, and in the cases of older films, color. But it's seldom possible to remake a real classic without losing more than you gain.
Probably because the driving force behind most remakes is money. Some movie mogul looks around for films that did very well financially in the past, and chooses them because he hopes they will do very well financially again. "Ocean's Eleven," for instance. The trouble is, he doesn't have those great old actors around any more.
I thought that would be the case with King Kong, but evidently the director chose it largely because he really loved the idea behind it as a kid and wanted to do the story even better.
I must admit that the idea of a movie with a giant ape normally would not appeal to me very much, but reading about PJ's total love for the source material (and seeing some of the early reviews) will make this the first Hollywood movie I will watch since the Return of the king.
Hope I am not dissapointed ;-)
netflix--nah good or bad it should be seen on a 70mm screen
That's why I'm more interested in looking at movies that weren't classics but started with what should have been a good idea. The story of Genghis Khan or the right story about the Crusades should make a great movie, done right.
I definitely agree that no one, no matter budget, cast or technology, should ever try to touch something like Maltese Falcon, Casablanca or The Searchers.
Ocean's Eleven," for instance. The trouble is, he doesn't have those great old actors around any more.
Ocean's Eleven is kind of a special case. Both version were simply complex caper films with an ensemble of really talented actors (yes, I mean that, regardless of the politics of the new gang) that got along with each other in real life. A caper film is (or should be) a hook for the chemistry of the people involved and that matters more than the script. The thing about the original for me is not so much the movie as the things I know were going on at the time they were filming, with the nightly shows at the Sands and then filming the next morning. Oh to have been in Vegas for that!
The same thing will apply to the "reimagining" of Topkapi as a Thomas Crown vehicle for Pierce Brosnan as The Topkapi Affair. There's no indication that Rene Russo will be back and that would be the reason to see the film. I wanted to see more of those two, kind of like Nick and Nora Charles in the old Thin Man movies. I also wanted to see if they could apply their talents to something more meaningful than alleviating their boredom.
I think your comment about Kong is right on. He wasn't doing it for the money. He truly loves the original and has the opportunity to give it a fresh "coat of paint," along with his own, loving, touch. Hopefully the apparent success of this remake will teach the 'suits' the right lesson. Of course, you know it won't. Be prepared for 100 truly awful remakes to be cranked out simply for the money.
I don't see any evidence of that. Titanic did well both critically and financially, but the Oscar voters just plain LIKED it--they didn't sit there and think "Well, the public likes it, so we gotta." I mean, if they did that, you wouldn't even have to argue your original point.
Oscar voters vote for their own reasons, they don't have to vote for something because the public likes it. The Academy also gave Best Pic to such movies as The Last Emperor, which certainly wasn't the #1 film of the year with the public.
The Oscar voters vote for what they want to vote for, and that's how it should be--they aren't awarding the Award for the Movie Most Americans Like, after all. One of the reasons the Academy is such a joke to someone like me is because they so obviously vote for a film's agenda some of the time, and other times vote for something they see as being arty but mainstream, too.
,i>By the way I REALLY did make a mistake in not writing BROKEBACK,but it does seem an interesting one
I wasn't gonna touch that one. In any case, watching a love story between two gay cowboys isn't my idea of fun.
Have you read Harold Lamb's books on Tamerlaine and Genghis Kahn? I read them several times when I was a boy and really got swept away. I agree it would be a great subject, but not from the kind of people who just did Troy or Alexander.
Don't be misled by that $100,000 per theater figure for Bareback Mountin.
It is playing in five (count'em), five theaters. Of course it will play to standing room only in San Francisco, West Hollywood, the East Village, Fire Island, and Provincetown. But outside those venues it will be the box office smash that "Saved", "Kinsley", and "De-Lovely" were.
BTW, I adore Naomi Watts and am happy to see her doing well.
Have you read the two volumes of The Last Lion, about the early and middle years of Churchill, by William Manchester? Spectacular biographies, though the fact that he never could finish the third volume, the war years and on to his death, is a true shame.
I feel equally strongly about the first two volumes of the TR bios written by Edmund Morris, The Rise of Theodore Roosevelt and Theodore Rex. The first one, about Roosevelt's early years, up to the day he becomes President, is going to be the basis for the Scorsese / DiCaprio TR biopic. There's way too much there to do much other than his "callow youth," maybe up to the Rough Riders story, yet there's so much more.
If you haven't read any of thoes biographies I'd recommend them highly.
I wasn't misled at all. I know quite a bit about the industry.
"It is playing in five (count'em), five theaters. Of course it will play to standing room only in San Francisco, West Hollywood, the East Village, Fire Island, and Provincetown. But outside those venues it will be the box office smash that "Saved", "Kinsley", and "De-Lovely" were."
That's impossible to say at this point. That's an absolutely phenomenal per-screen average and will help build word of mouth. This is nothing but good news for that movie.
"BTW, I adore Naomi Watts and am happy to see her doing well."
She's an anti-American *****. She's gone to those "US out of Iraq/Bush sucks" marches and has been quite vocal about it. I liked her in "We Don't Live Here Anymore" but find her startlingly average as an actress, considering her fame. She's nice looking but that's about it.
You have broken my heart about Naomi Watts. Sniff, sniff.
I see women having a contest of how many of them can make their guy see "Brokeback Mountain".
Ewww. If mine tries to get me to see that, I'm back on the market.
Considering Naomi Watts is from Austrailia, maybe she needs to just shut up about America.
I really don't think Brokeback Mountain will do that great. As a friend of mine says "That movie would rock, if it was about lesbians, no one wants to see two gay cowboys."
I have never watched "Will and Grace" but it is my understanding that the show never shows Will actually kissing another man. Men can be quite turned on by an Elizabeth Berkeley - Gina Gershon tongue session but will be revulsed by the sight of two men at each others rumps.
That sounds right to me. I find it amusing that some libs who (properly) say those on the right can't denounce films they haven't seen are already saying this movie is a classic and if you don't like it you're a homophobe, without having seen it themselves.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.