King Kong trailer reviewed

Haha. This post is elitism at it's very finest. Well done ol' chap.

Reply

Man, he's not kidding, this is definitely elitism. I thought the trailer was interesting. Naomi Watts is still absolutely beautiful and she can definitely fit this part. My biggest surprise was Adrien Brody. Who the heck thought HE would be a good idea? The movie will still be huge when it comes out regardless of what you two think about it in your own little world...

Reply

Please give me the time it took to read this post back (No, I didn't make it through the whole thing). I think we're all a little dumber for having read that.

Reply

that has to be the most revolting post yet. goddam - you two are retards.

Reply

I second scampster's remark.

Reply

Yep, this site comes off my daily visit list today. I thought I could put up with all the incestual Weblogs Inc. cross-promo crap for some decent movie talk, but that has yet to surface. Combine that with some shockingly juvenile and just plain stupid comments in this entry. I know I won't be missed (I don't click the damn ads in the RSS feeds), but so long.

Reply

Well that was the most useless post ever. Thanks for nothing.

Reply

Firstly, an admission: I've never seen the original King Kong. I've seen bits and pieces, but that's all.

That said, I was underwhelmed by the trailer. Jack Black definitely seems stiff. He's clearly trying really hard not to be School of Rock Jack Black, but instead his performance seems unnatural. That's unfortunate, as I love Jack Black and I'd like nothing better than to see him succeed in a few serious roles a la Adam Sandler.

I didn't dislike Naomi Watts' performance, but it seemed to me like Peter Jackson is pretending he had Nicole Kidman. Or has Nicole Kidman has been emulating Fay Wray all these years?

I have a theory about the bad CGI: Maybe it's not done. The film's not due out until December, so post-production is surely still in full-swing. I think it's entirely possible that for the trailer they did a quick render with lower quality and frame rate than we'll see in the feature. We know that WETA is capable of doing high-quality CGI, and I'm confident that the final product will at least look convincing.

I'm not ready to write this one off as the disaster Karina and Ryan foresee, but though I loved the Lord of the Rings films, I'm not as convinced as some are that Peter Jackson is
now incapable of laying a rotten egg.

Reply

Karina-

I feel that most people (including myself) aren't trashing your opinions on the trailer, but rather the way in which you gave them. I, for one, also felt that the trailer seemed to make the movie look like little more than Jurassic Park with a monkey set in the past.

Your argument, however, came across as little more than two teenagers (IM has a way of doing that) who are high on themselves and their "totally sweet" knowledge of movies.

I have been reading your site for about a month now, and have come to value your opinions. I merely suggest that your critiques in the future be more like a review rather than the conversation me and my 12 year old cousin would have.

Reply

Have you guys forgotten the joy of just disappearing into a film for two hours? Are you empowered by your contrarian stance? The movie looks great. It looks fun in the same way that Jurassic Park, Titanic, I, Robot, and There’s Something About Mary were fun. It’s not an art flick nor does it pretend to be. You are not supposed to leave the film with a new respect for monkeys or bedazzled by some plot twist that you never saw coming. It’s just a movie to dissolve into. I think it looks amazing. It looks fun. It looks interesting. The effects look good. The sound was full and dynamic. The actors looked appealing. I hope they do an IMAX of it because me and my family will enjoy the movie.

Save the elitist spin for movies that warrant your elevated perception of “good”. The public dollar is the ultimate determining factor in what a good movie is. Pearl Harbor, Hitch, Independence Day, The Day After Tomorrow…all good movies. This will be, too.

Reply

Wow, what a bunch of whiners and I mean those who left comments.
Some of you never even saw the original King Kong, and this trailer sucked, it's awful as Karina said the CGI was distractingly bad. I tend not to get excited at previews but I did for King Kong and I've been let down. This looks more like Mighty Joe Young.
Sure this post rambled towards the end but it was dead on. Also Naomi Watts is not too old, forty is the new twenty at least thats what I tell myself. Everything about this movie looks bad and half of the movies Chance mentioned were bad too just because they made money doesn't make them good. They will not stand the test of time.

Reply

For the life of me, I don't understand why studios continue to take these classic flicks and tarnish the original with embarasing remakes. What happened to originality? Even computer generated special effects can't hide a bad product. Based on your review of the trailer for Kong, I have no intention at all to see this film. I would much rather rent the Fay Wray orginal and enjoy a true gem of a picture.

Reply

(Full disclosure: I got about ten lines into the conversation, then stopped because I could HEAR my brain cells crying out in pain.)

I don't know how many of you are familiar with the original King Kong story. He lives on a fantastic island - full of dinosaurs, impossible creatures, and savage natives. A lot of people only remember the "monkey climbing the building" part of it, if only from the posters, or the endless parodies and homages.

So.

Maybe some homework is required. Maybe you should sit down, watch the original, and then try to see what Peter Jackson wants to accomplish with this movie: to pay tribute not only to the black and white classic, but to all fantastic, edge-of-your-seat, out of this world movies from a bygone age. Movies used to amaze people - they would literally be stunned by what they saw on screen. When's the last time you felt that way? For me, it was when I saw Empire Strikes Back. Ever since then, everything I've seen was old hat (the only one that came close was Jurassic Park). Peter Jackson truly loves the old style, the old ways, the old look. You have to understand the time period this movie takes place in to understand the Jack Black character: He's a slimy movie producer, and that's just how they spoke back then, at least in the movies anyway.

The comments regarding the trailer were, simply put, atrociously elitist, as someone mentioned already. We live in a world so cynical, so malicious, that movies like King Kong, The Mask of Zorro, and The Rocketeer (to name just a few) are a welcome respite. The old swashbuckling flicks were a little cheesy, a whole lot corny, and always a rollicking good time. But you have to surrender to being OK with cheesy and corny. But I tell you, if you do, you'll have a great movie experience, and that's really what it's all about.

Reply

Karina:

The original post spends most of it’s length mocking various aspects of the trailer then goes on to damn the movie-going populace with, “We're beyond the point where the public is able to even recognize a debacle.”

Other posters respond with indignation.

You respond to their indignation with a whining post about “you could make a stronger case for your side by delineating your own argument, rather than just trashing someone else's opinion.” You can dish out the trashing but you can’t take it. I think that’s what most people find repugnant about the post.

By making a blanket condemnation of the opinion of the general movie-going populace, you have removed this critique away from the quality of the trailer and towards a critique of the quality of the tastes of the general movie-going populace. Naturally, the moving- going populace (I count myself in this group) will respond back by commenting on the quality of your opinion and person.

Reply

I originally started paying attention to Cinematical because I made a film, and heck, I like movies.

But really, after a good couple of months of this weblog, I'm about done. This one nearly finishes it for me. There's some vague joy in watching someone deftly cutting up others' work in seconds, especially when the work in question is done of purely monetary gain and with no true quality attempted.

But honestly, this is just worthless sniping. I find very little CGI in movies "realistic" and I'm quite fine with that. If you want a tech demo, go to Siggraph and watch some fluid dynamics. I go to a few movies a year (and buy a lot of DVDs) because I want to be entertained or informed (in the case of documentaries). I am as concerned about movies being 'realistic' as I am about, say, anime or comic books being 'realistic'. I can see arguments otherwise, but I'm quite fine with realizing that all the nice people up in the big square are two-dimensional and going along for a little ride.

Peter Jackson made Heavenly Creatures and the Lord of the Rings. In fact, he basically spent about 7 years making Lord of the Rings. He can do musical remakes of "Meatballs" for the rest of his life and I'll go, because LOTR was transcendant for me.

I initially thought this weblog's repugnancy was my unawareness of the nature of film criticism on the ground. I now realize it's just because it's a bad weblog. See you at the movies.

Reply

Hey, great chatcast!

Reply

The response to this post by all the fanboys out there is truly unreal.

I watched the trailer last night, and the only emotion I could feel was disappointment. Jack Black is one of the lead actors? I don't understand why Peter Jackson decided to cast him. Naomi Watts looks like she will be totally underused. This trailer instilled no sense of wonder for me in the way that those for the Lord of the Rings movies did.

I did not think the CGI effects were terrible, and I actually thought King Kong looked pretty good. The dinosaurs did look like they were lifted right out of Jurassic Park, though. And the island didn't seem that great.

To all those who found the review elitist and/or cynical: there are other websites for you people. Go TalkBack at aintitcool.

And my favorite comment: "He [Peter Jackson] can do musical remakes of 'Meatballs' for the rest of his life and I'll go, because LOTR was transcendant for me." Of all the stupid comments I just wasted my time reading, this one was the apotheosis of fanboy-ism. How many of you Ridley Scott fans who loved Blade Runner went out to see G.I. Jane? How many Spielberg fans flocked to Always? How many Hitchcock fans really loved Frenzy? Past movies are not an indicator of future success. The idea that Peter Jackson can do no wrong is idiotic: no artists in any medium create the amazing forever. While this is only a trailer, it definitely does not bode well for the finished product.

Reply

You've misinterpreted my comments, zander. Understandable, because I don't think I made what I was saying clear.

It's less a "fanboy" thing than a slack thing. If somebody is creating a body of work, and in doing so I see some absolutely amazing stuff from them, then I don't expect every single piece of work out of them from that point on to be equally amazing. Sometimes, in fact, they might be mediocre, misguided, and a host of other issues. But even in the worst of projects, I see the glimmer of what I liked before.

A good example is Jeunet's work in Alien 4: Resurrection, where it might have been "yet another" sequel in the Aliens series, but I went to see it because of the director. He cast two of his regulars in leading roles, he did a lot of great effects and light and interplay that was reminiscent of City of Lost Children and Delicatessen, and for that I had a good time. It really wasn't about the aliens at all for me when I saw it.

If Jackson goes and makes 5 more movies and they're all not very good at all and not very enjoyable to watch and I don't see his style and approach in them, yes, I'm sure the glimmer will fade for me. But for now, I'll keeping my eyes open.

Reply