Some thoughts on film (3) - King Kong
I refuse to believe that "King Kong" is a good movie.
On the one hand, there's what I know about the it: Naomi Watts and a giant computer generated gorilla meet, fall in love, fight dinosaurs, watch the sun set and waltz around on top of the Empire State Building. And it's directed by Peter Jackson, the man responsible for my least favorite movie of 2001, and 2002, and 2003. Jackson has proven himself adept at creating stunning visual spectacles, to be sure. Nevertheless, I can't imagine that any measure of visual wizardry can transform the flimsy subject matter of "King Kong" into an intelligent, purpose-driven motion picture.
But everything I've read about the movie has insisted that Jackson has created yet another "masterpiece." Rolling Stone raved about it. So did Entertainment Weekly. And Roger Ebert. Even my old friend A.O. Scott, usually a stalwart crusader against populism, sang its praises in The New York Times.
It's funny, because this is exactly the kind of movie that I tend to get most excited about seeing--a movie that I know is going to be terrible, but has gotten really good reviews. I can't wait to get in there and see past the smoke and mirrors, sift out the flaws (the more the better), and prove the world wrong. I love being a killjoy almost as much as I love being smug.
On the one hand, there's what I know about the it: Naomi Watts and a giant computer generated gorilla meet, fall in love, fight dinosaurs, watch the sun set and waltz around on top of the Empire State Building. And it's directed by Peter Jackson, the man responsible for my least favorite movie of 2001, and 2002, and 2003. Jackson has proven himself adept at creating stunning visual spectacles, to be sure. Nevertheless, I can't imagine that any measure of visual wizardry can transform the flimsy subject matter of "King Kong" into an intelligent, purpose-driven motion picture.
But everything I've read about the movie has insisted that Jackson has created yet another "masterpiece." Rolling Stone raved about it. So did Entertainment Weekly. And Roger Ebert. Even my old friend A.O. Scott, usually a stalwart crusader against populism, sang its praises in The New York Times.
It's funny, because this is exactly the kind of movie that I tend to get most excited about seeing--a movie that I know is going to be terrible, but has gotten really good reviews. I can't wait to get in there and see past the smoke and mirrors, sift out the flaws (the more the better), and prove the world wrong. I love being a killjoy almost as much as I love being smug.
posted by temporarily unemployed at 20:04
1 Comments:
Two things, Michael:
1) You are a movie snob
2) You've been driving some SERIOUS reads on my blog; 16 people have come to my blog from yours this month (or maybe just you, 16 times)
Post a Comment
<< Home