2nd King Kong review 1st to use bad gorilla metaphors
Filed under: Sci-Fi & Fantasy, Critical Thought, Newsstand, Peter Jackson, Remakes and Sequels
Earlier this week, the first "review" of Peter Jackson's King Kong hit the web, in the form of a pay-for-play puff piece by Devin Gordon of Newsweek. The second review of the film, courtesy of The Daily Mail, is essentially exactly what you'd expect from a tabloid take on a major cultural event: lots of production trivia ("The Kong busts took a long time to make. Just punching in the 40,000 yak hairs took three and a half weeks for each one") crap analogies ("Jackson opens his movie with Al Jolson singing "I'm Sitting On Top Of
The World". And that's where the director is - with the competition far,
far below") and a few cringingly awful turns of phrase ("King Kong truly is an 8,000lb gorilla of a movie"). In short: another empty rave. When's someone going to step up and take this film seriously? We see the film on Monday, but for the sake of the state of criticism, I hope someone beats of us to it. 
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 1)
12-02-2005 @ 11:42AM
loblaw said...
jesus, it sounds like you have an 8,000 lb. gorilla up your ass.
Reply
12-02-2005 @ 1:56PM
richard said...
please wait until you have seen the film before making all these negative empty talks and bullshit! you pathetic!
Reply
12-02-2005 @ 3:29PM
shawn said...
of course the monkey is fake.
and luke skywalker really had a light saber!
Reply
12-02-2005 @ 5:51PM
zander106 said...
In defense of Cinematical, the criticism Karina is voicing in her post is aimed at the *reviews* thus far, not the movie itself. Her point, if I'm not mistaken, is that the two existing reviews so far are, well, not reviews. They're just puff pieces. Not any different than you'd get watching E! or Access Hollywood.
I am also hoping that we see some *real* takes on the movie in the near future. I am very much on the fence about King Kong based on what I've seen so far (yes, I think the trailers suck), but if the reviews are good then I'll consider devoting three hours of my life to it.
Reply
12-03-2005 @ 1:55AM
Targ8ter said...
I'm fairly certain that the Kong busts mentioned, used for actor's eyelines and such, were plaster or foam and hadn't been furred. I could be wrong, but this whole piece sounds like bad reporting.
Reply
12-12-2005 @ 11:24AM
k said...
I just saw King Kong. It was horrible!
The last 30min of the movie was good. But the rest skip it. He introduced characters, that made you ask why bother. Jack Black was horrible. Naomi Watts was great even perfect. Kong also looked great. But the movie is a big waist. The entire 1st hour is the boat ride to the island, what a waist.
Reply
1-01-2006 @ 1:43AM
Ned Mullen said...
An entertaining 10 course feast of pure entertainment. A delight from begining to end.
Ned Mullen
Reply