King Kong trailer reviewed
Filed under: Action, Sci-Fi & Fantasy, New Releases
I was going to write a proper review of the King Kong trailer ... but it had me so enraged that I just had to share it with my friend and fellow Cinematical writer Ryan Stewart. Here's our instant message conversation:
kmlongworth: http://www.moviecitynews.com/arrays/media/2005/king_kong.html
rts_ryan: Wow. I'm shocked by how terrible that is.
kmlongworth: yeah
kmlongworth: it's almost in bad taste
rts_ryan: almost? Jack Black is a terrible dramatic actor. It looks like The Mummy. Just a bunch of bad CGI crap...I didnt see one interesting thing in that trailer.
kmlongworth: the CGI is distractingly bad
rts_ryan: I think that's the first time I've ever been genuinely interested in a movie and, after seeing the trailer, am reconsidering my decision to even go see it.
kmlongworth: and it's clear that he's at least making an attempt to pay homage to the original, which makes it worse
kmlongworth: he's directly, almost deliberately tarnishing a good film's reputation
rts_ryan: Jack Black is trying to do some fast-talking 30s speak that never existed.
kmlongworth: he's not even approaching the character of the original denham
rts_ryan: Kong looked ridiculous. It looked like something from a lame video game. Nothing original about it at all.
kmlongworth: i'm watching it again ... just to torture myself
kmlongworth: oh my god ... that pullback over the "water"?
kmlongworth: every element of nature in this thing can only be referred to in quotes
rts_ryan: the apple thing. they are obviously just re-filming the original movie,.
kmlongworth: it really does look like a cheapie video game
kmlongworth: it's like the whole thing has been done in the style of the title font
rts_ryan: fighting the dinosaurs. its all just going to be so bad, I can tell
rts_ryan: I knew Lord of the Rings was a fluke.
kmlongworth: well, I loved Heavenly Creatures
kmlongworth: but that kind of thing didn't point anywhere near this career direction
rts_ryan: Oh my god. Did Kong actually catch her as she was about to be eaten by a dinosaur.
kmlongworth: yeah
rts_ryan: its mighty joe young
kmlongworth: so, he must be going out of his way to make kong look fake, right?
kmlongworth: they have to be able to do a better job than that
kmlongworth: even the motion seems herky-jerky, as if in homage to the original
rts_ryan: I dont think so. I didnt see anything remotely clever about it. Just a big dinosaur and a big gorilla. I'm just having a future-flash of all these boring actors on talk shows paying lip-service to the original movie. I'm getting so world-weary from all this garbage.
kmlongworth: it's depressing. i do love the original. I knew this was one of the ultimate cases of a remake coming to a necesarily bad end
kmlongworth: this is as bad of an idea as Van Sant's Psycho
rts_ryan: why naomi watts? she's like 40.
kmlongworth: so's yr girlfriend Nicole Kidman
rts_ryan: why everything. someone stop this movie from happening.
rts_ryan: they should just re-release the original.
kmlongworth: it would have saved everyone a lot of pain, don't you think?
rts_ryan: But the worst part is that they have to praise the original, which is so Orwellian.
kmlongworth: do you think this is going to be one of the great debacles?
kmlongworth: Because people predicted that with the trailer for Jurassic Park, but then it came out and everyone suddenly pretended like it was worth a damn
rts_ryan: Right. We're beyond the point where the public is able to even recognize a debacle.
kmlongworth: Oh, that's snotty.
kmlongworth: Possibly true, but awfully snotty.
rts_ryan: Obviously true. Please tell me those aren't the lost 'giant spiders' they are fighting.
kmlongworth: the casting actually seems to be the best part of it ... and that's really not saying anything
rts_ryan: I disagree. Jack Black can't do dramatic acting. You can tell that in the trailer. He's playing Jack Black. And Naomi Watts is a bore. And she's too old to play an ingenue.
kmlongworth: well, this is what i'm saying, though
kmlongworth: the overall quality of the thing is so low that the badly cast bad actors are the most watchable part
rts_ryan: that's the state of our expectations?
kmlongworth: can there be any suspense to a remake, other than in terms of style?
kmlongworth: at least, in terms of a remake done self-conciously faithfully?
kmlongworth: or, even, "faithfully"
rts_ryan: You're not supposed to re-make good movies. Re-make bad movies and make them good. Good movies got it right the first time.
kmlongworth: agreed
rts_ryan: I think Hollywood is just going to cannibalize itself until no one is even paying attention anymore.
rts_ryan: Good example: I really enjoyed Kenneth Branaugh's version of Frankenstein. the original is iconic and all, but it has nothing to do with Shelley's book. Branaugh's movie was the first time I'd ever seen Shelley's book filmed.
rts_ryan: thats a remake worth doing.
kmlongworth: yeah. but that's not really a remake
kmlongworth: as you say, its a fundamentally different movie than the classic Frankenstein
rts_ryan: then that applies to all my examples, I guess. I was going to say the same thing about The Talented Mr Ripley, which I liked. That had been filmed in the 70s, too.
kmlongworth: right
kmlongworth: i like the second A Star is Born
kmlongworth: which, storywise, stays pretty close to the original
rts_ryan: depalma's scarface is great.
kmlongworth: yeah
kmlongworth: I do like The Beat That My Heart Skipped an awful lot, but it's hard to read it as a remake of Fingers
kmlongworth: i know you like Adrian Lyne's Lolita, but, again, i guess that goes back to the novel more than to the Kubrick film
rts_ryan: right. I seem to enjoy those more, usually.
kmlongworth: i like High Society, the musical remake of The Philadelphia Story
kmlongworth: and Silk Stockings, the musical remake of Ninotchka
kmlongworth: but neither is as good as the originals
rts_ryan: Psycho was almost interesting to watch the same way Faces of Death is interesting to watch.
rts_ryan: The remake I mean.
rts_ryan: Just trainwreck carnage.
kmlongworth: What if, in 50 years, someone tries to remake Star Wars?
rts_ryan: Somehow I dont think that will happen. I predict the blockbuster era will go out eventually. I mean, before the early 80s it didnt exist so its still more of an anomaly than the norm. The general public will tune out, and everyone will say Hollywood is dead, and then the ones who are left will start making real movies again.
kmlongworth: Okay. Any final trailer thoughts?
rts_ryan: No. Nothing more to say.
kmlongworth: Okay. goodnight, ryan.
rts_ryan: goodnight, karina.
Tom Cruise and J.J. Abrams Reunite for 'Mission Impossible 4'
'Big Top Pee-Wee': The Original Benicio Del Toro Wolfman
Spin-ematical: New on DVD and Blu-ray for 2/9
Watch This: Brilliant Oscar-Nominated Short 'Logorama'
Chris Nolan to Lead 'Superman' Reboot!?
_thumbnail.jpg)
_thumbnail.jpg)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
11-09-2005 @ 4:27PM
Dr Smooth said...
LOL... As someone who worked on this film I can't wait to see what you have to say after seeing this film in theaters.
I can't wait to watching your credibility go down the toilet. Just think about what your readers would think of you if you had spewed the same whiny elitist crap and bagged on the artistic intent of the Lord of the Rings before it came out.
Reply
11-20-2005 @ 1:00PM
Joo R PWNED said...
The reviewers of this trailer are n00bs.
Reply
12-08-2005 @ 11:53AM
Jim Bob said...
(agreeing with Dr Smooth) I think it is rediculous that you are trying to judge a movie off of a trailer. Watch the movie first then throw your comments out there, instead of ranting about a trailer and therefore killing your credibility. But I guess you could chalk this one up as another "fluke", because we all know people don't watch movies and enjoy them over and over again because it is trash. People watch movies and think, "ooh I feel the fluke in this movie, lets watch it again!".
Reply
12-14-2005 @ 2:13PM
MADcHATTER said...
Imitation being the highest form of flattery is being tested here. Hollywood, it seems, has reached it's Earth Friendly goal of using 91% recycled materials. While I applaud the efforts on some remakes its just further proof that Hollywood has run out of original ideas. I will probably see this film if for no other reason than to see how close it resembles the original. Anything HAS to be better than the Dino DeLaurentis version of 1976.
Personally I would like to see Hollywood (or even Peter Jackson) make a movie based on Arthur C. Clarke's "Childhoods End" novel...its a short but excellent book and would make a great movie if for no other reason than it hadnt been done before.
Reply
6-28-2005 @ 5:24PM
mick du russel said...
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
6-28-2005 @ 8:59AM
van said...
Haha. This post is elitism at it's very finest. Well done ol' chap.
Reply
6-28-2005 @ 9:11AM
NCTRNL said...
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
6-28-2005 @ 9:34AM
Jon Wilk said...
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
6-28-2005 @ 10:47AM
scampster said...
that has to be the most revolting post yet. goddam - you two are retards.
Reply
6-28-2005 @ 11:07AM
Neuron Flash said...
I second scampster's remark.
Reply
6-28-2005 @ 11:10AM
Todd said...
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
6-28-2005 @ 11:12AM
karina said...
I don't know guys ... I am a retard, so maybe I don't know any better, but it would seem that if you disagree with something, you could make a stronger case for your side by delineating your own argument, rather than just trashing someone else's opinion.
Reply
6-28-2005 @ 11:13AM
Useless said...
Well that was the most useless post ever. Thanks for nothing.
Reply
6-28-2005 @ 11:44AM
Jordan Running said...
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
6-29-2005 @ 11:32AM
Neuron Flash said...
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
6-28-2005 @ 12:11PM
Jon Wilk said...
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
6-28-2005 @ 12:56PM
Chance McClain said...
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
6-28-2005 @ 5:12PM
karina said...
Jon - thanks for clarifying. Comments like your second one are really useful to us - unqualified "you-suck"-ism is not.
Reply
6-28-2005 @ 4:28PM
Man said...
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
6-29-2005 @ 9:59AM
Rico said...
(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