King Kong of utter boredom
Since it got some decent reviews, I went and saw King Kong. I expect very little intellectual stimulation from Hollywood; However, I do anticipate some entertainment. This movie provided neither. It’s a 3 hour boring, sleepy experience in 3 acts… 1) get to secret island 2) stun and haul KK to NYC and 3) Kill KK… each phase taking about an hour. Yawn.
I heard a guy on TV say that “King Kong is the state of the art in special effects at the end of 2005.” And here lies the problem. I first realized it while reading Maddox‘ insight on Star Wars III:
NEWS FLASH: Episode III had no special effects.
They’re not “special effects” anymore when they’re found in EVERY SCENE. Lucas has done the seemingly impossible: he has made something that was once so unique that people called it “special” by name, and turned it into something so ordinary that nobody raises an eyebrow during a scene where a guy is having a sword fight on the back of a giant beast.
Fact is, there is no more “special” in “special effects.” What used to “wow” us and covered up for crap storyline and bad acting is over. King Kong is the ultimate example since the CGI is the story here, not anything else. They had 3 hours of good CGI and they stretched the story thin to accommodate it. The b-level actors didn’t help either. Hollywood is busy blaming everybody else for their losses except themselves for producing crap, but now the “special” well has dried up too.
I’ve learned another important thing from this movie: people run as fast as giant apes and dinosaurs. The movie accurately shows, in many a scene, that this has to be true. The scientific community is taking note.
January 4th, 2006 at 9:58 pm
Big Monkey (primate), Big Dinosaur, Big Deal. Wasn’t 3 Jurassic Parks enough punishment ? I went and saw Memoirs of a Geisha instead. A bit girlie but at least it was good !!!
Good article about special effects not being that special anymore.
January 5th, 2006 at 7:10 pm
I’ve heard bad reviews about it before, but one friend of mine loved it and saw it twice? Either way I can wait till its out on dvd.
January 7th, 2006 at 1:55 am
The critics loved it but I saw two or three previews and from that I can almost wholeheartedly agree with Saar. I don’t even think Naomi Watts can save this pick from being anything more than a special(as in Olympics)-effects atrocity. My wife is sick of me following hollywood too closely, and I can’t blame her. They keep producing trash and not owning up to it. They blame the viewers and the high-priced home theatre systems. That ain’t it, guys. People are abandoning the movies in droves because the quality sucks. This is the best they can offer for 2005? If home theatres are really to blame, it’s because people want to watch good movies, like ‘Gone with the Wind’ or ‘12 Angry Men’. Produce stuff worth watching, instead of a high-priced digital chimp who is in love with Naomi (who isn’t? Like that’s original).
January 9th, 2006 at 3:59 am
I have been avoiding this film until out on DVD because I figure Peter Jackson has created a film that is an homage to the 1933 version. They say he will even have an extended version since he lopped off substantial footage for theatrical release.
I also plan to watch the 1933 version first - that will probably be key since the basic story just doesn’t ‘grab’ me.
January 9th, 2006 at 5:13 pm
Home theater is pretty cool but the experience of a high quality movie theater with super-duper mondo expensive sound and digital projection is still worth the $10 ticket. IF THE MOVIE IS GOOD !
How do you feel about sweet kung-fu movies Vince ?
January 16th, 2006 at 8:49 pm
I haven’t seen the movie, but the PS2 game for it was amazing.