KingKong Tagged Articles at Cinematical

On Friday night at 7pm, after most fanboys had already fulfilled their quotient of nerdgasms and geek-freakouts, Peter Jackson and James Cameron appeared together at a panel hosted by Entertainment Weekly entitled "The Visionaries." Rather than just talking about their current projects, however, the two iconic filmmakers offered a sort of State of the Cinematic Union, addressing problems and challenges they face, even as they addressed a few rumors about what their respective futures hold.

The most important of their observations and revelations:

My inbox, Facebook, and Twitter page were semi-flooded with messages of support and condolence when this A L I E N remake gossip hit the wires, and that's because (as anyone in the universe can tell you), it's my #1 favorite film of all time. Mainly because it's just about the perfect horror film, but also because it's a movie that helped plant me on the road of movie freakdom, and for that I'm eternally grateful. Plus it has Sigourney Weaver in her underwear.

So if a film as undeniably flawless as A L I E N can be considered for a remake, it begs the question: What movie won't they remake? Keep in mind that Psycho, Halloween, The Manchurian Candidate, and King Kong have already earned remakes, which tells me that all bets are off. Not even Casablanca, Gone with the Wind, or The Wizard of Oz are safe. Therefore, clearly, remakes are a force of pure evil.

Then again, there IS the old Shakespeare argument, the one that says "Hey, the Bard's plays have been remade over and over for centuries, and surely you wouldn't call Casablanca superior to King Lear, would you?" To which I would respond, "Good point. And no, Casablanca is definitely not superior to King Lear. But A L I E N certainly is."

I haven't read Twilight, but a friend who has described it as chapter upon chapter of Kristen Stewart's character swooning over Robert Pattinson's youthful 108-year old vampire. Males the world over are running for the hills -- but maybe they shouldn't. After all, the horror-romance has a long and venerable history. The juxtaposition makes sense: just like clowns can become scary with just a small tweak in their make-up, love stories can turn into horror stories by edging just slightly toward the sinister. I have some hope that Twilight might be creepy rather than gooey; we'll see soon enough. In the meantime, here are a few examples of films that have done a nice job with the horror-romance combination.

1. The Fly (1986) - I actually think that Cronenberg's take on The Fly is the scariest movie I've ever seen, albeit for reasons having little to do with the romance between Jeff Goldblum's Seth Brundle and Geena Davis's Veronica. (I'm generally freaked out by genetic weirdness.) But the film gets much of its poignancy from their relationship, which both sets things in motion and brings them to a close. Consider that Brundle tries his invention on himself out of jealousy, imagining an infidelity that didn't exist. And Veronica's final heartbreaking gesture is one of both pity and love.

I'm still not sold on this performance-capture stuff (Beowulf looks terrible), but leave it to Steven Spielberg, Peter Jackson and a little adventuring character named Tintin to change my mind ... hopefully. Dreamworks and producer Kathleen Kennedy (E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial) are busy working on their 3-D animated trilogy based on Georges "Herge" Remi's iconic Belgian reporter character, and I'm really hoping they get it right. Although they haven't yet found a third filmmaker to helm the installment not being directed by Spielberg or Jackson, they have hired a screenwriter. According to The Hollywood Reporter, British television vet Steven Moffat will script all three parts. The guy has written for series' as diverse as Coupling, Doctor Who and this past summer's Jekyll. Is he ready to tackle such a big-deal project?

Personally, I'm not worried about the scripts for the Tintin movies. Herge was such a great storyteller that I can't imagine it would be difficult to adapt his work. What I'm more worried about is how the film will look. From what we've heard so far, they're attempting something that looks realistic (or live-action) while still retaining the look of Herge's drawings (which are cartoons). Sure, I want to be able to trust Spielberg and Jackson (as Scott mentioned awhile back: if you can't trust them, who can you trust?), but then I haven't seen any performance-capture work that I've been satisfied with -- at least not anything that encompassed an entire film and all of its characters. Will it be more like Robert Zemeckis' Beowulf, which looks too much like a video game, or will it be more like Jackson's work with Andy Serkis in both his Lord of the Rings trilogy and King Kong? Or will it be something totally new, unlike anything we've ever seen? All I have to say is that I hope Zemeckis isn't the third director hired.

Remaking a film, whether it's a classic or not, can be a tricky thing: The source material needs to be solid, there has to be an audience that will want to see the film, and -- most importantly -- there has to be a legitimate reason for an update. Regarding the final point, this "legitimate reason" cannot be making a crap-ton of money by fast-tracking a dud. It should be, as in the case of 2005's King Kong, that an update adds something to the original, such as kick-ass special effects that weren't available back in the '70s (the last time Kong graced screens), or simply makes it more accessible to modern audiences. Alas, too few movies heed this final point, and that is why so many remakes, from Planet of the Apes to Psycho, fall short of expectations.

Moviefone has ranked the 25 Worst Movie Remakes of all time, beginning with the moderately misguided and finishing up with the flagrantly bad and unnecessary. Check out the list, then share your picks for the worst remakes. Did we miss any stinkers? Did we include any that, in your opinion, are brilliant reimaginings? And, lastly, do you think Helena Bonham Carter still looks hot as an ape?

In this day and age you can do anything with special effects. But can you do it well? I believe that you can, but Hollywood doesn't seem to be in agreement with my belief. Studios continue to put out movies with special effects that disappoint, and I think it is disrespectful to audiences. Either figure it out, or leave it out. Every time I see a bad effect in a movie, I know it could have been done better, or more imaginatively, and it frustrates the heck out of me. The worst is when I see a bad effect in a movie with mostly great effects, such as in The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King.

A visual effect doesn't have to be great or even realistic as long as it works with the story and is believable -- I'll take Harryhausen or Henson over most of the CGI attempts lately. Unfortunately, Hollywood seems to half-heartedly strive for greatness and realism with every movie, and more often than not it fails to achieve either. In my thirty years I've seen some terrible visual effects, some only terrible in retrospect, some only terrible in perspective with what else has been done. I'm not usually surprised by bad effects, though, because I've developed a cynicism about effects, particularly about CGI, that causes me to expect the worst. Nonetheless, I've picked seven movies that did actually surprise me -- a lot.

1. King Kong (2005)

In The Return of the King, Peter Jackson has some bad effects shots, but at least they're just shots. In his next film, King Kong, he has bad effects sequences. And as with The Return of the King, they are all the more apparent and all the more frustrating because there are actually some great effects shots and sequences in King Kong (it did deserve the Oscar). The worst example in Kong is the dinosaur stampede. At first the sequence is tolerable because the dinos are rendered beautifully and the weak green-screen compositing is not any worse than what many of us grew up with. But as the sequence progresses, the interaction between the actors and the computer-generated dinos looks too fake, too much like something made long ago, before computers were even used. Both the part on the cliff and the part where the animals fall over each other are sloppy and unacceptable. It is a completely ironic sequence, too, since it begins with an exchange about movies looking real. At least someone thought to score the thing sped up with "Yakkety Sax" or it wouldn't be completely useless.

After breaking into the big time playing (and modeling for) CGI characters Gollum (in The Lord of the Rings trilogy) and King Kong, it is time that Andy Serkis becomes recognized for his own face as much as for his versatile acting talents. You may have seen him in supporting roles in Hollywood fare like 13 Going on 30 or The Prestige, and you can see him as the villain in the upcoming fantasy Inkheart, but you probably haven't had the opportunity to see him carry a film mostly on his own. Fortunately you may get to soon, as he's just been cast as one of the leads in The Cottage. I say you may get to because The Cottage is being made by a hot, up-and-coming British director named Paul Andrew Williams, who has been receiving a lot of awards and acclaim abroad for his debut feature, London to Brighton, but who hasn't been given any attention from American distributors yet.

The Cottage is to be a black comedy horror film about a botched kidnapping of a crime boss' daughter. Serkis will be playing one of two brothers who perform the failed crime and who then find themselves mixed up in some kind of "rural secret". The other brother will likely be played by British comedy star Reece Shearsmith. Other cast members include Jennifer Ellison and Steve O'Donnell. Since there are no real international stars, the chances of The Cottage getting a release in the U.S. are low, but hopefully enough Peter Jackson fans will want to see Serkis in the spotlight and will give Hollywood a reason to pick this one up.

If Williams' work doesn't get a proper showing over here, there may be other chances to see Serkis in a starring role. It was just announced by HBO Films and the BBC that he will be playing Albert Einstein in a made-for-TV biopic. There isn't certainty that we will be able to easily see this film either, but it definitely shows that Serkis is on the right path to bigger and more well-known things.

Since the script called for an "overweight gross-out comedian with a drug addiction," who better to cast than Jack Black? The actor has just signed up to play a character named Jeff "Fats" Portnoy in Tropic Thunder, to be directed by Ben Stiller. Written by Justin Theroux (who starred alongside Stiller in Zoolander and Duplex) and Etan Cohen, pic follows a group of actors who run into a whole mess of trouble while filming a big-budget war movie, forcing them to become the commandos they are playing. Think of it as Three Amigos! meets another wacky Ben Stiller comedy.

Along with Black, Robert Downey Jr. will play four-time Oscar winner Kirk Lazarus, known as the "greatest actor of his generation." Jay Baruchel will tackle an unknown actor named Kevin Sandusky and Stiller plays a dude named Speedman -- who, I assume, will be all amped up and ready to kick major ass (ie: typical Stiller shtick). Theroux also stars, though there's no word on who he is playing (maybe the washed-up actor looking for a second chance?). It's funny that Black should land this part, as his character's major obstacle is that he must give up a drug addiction in order to shoot in the jungle. Sound familiar? Back when Black was on a brief hiatus from filming King Kong, the guy took the opportunity to get absolutely sloshed, partying it up as if there were no tomorrow. I guess those jungles really get to a guy, huh? Tropic Thunder is currently scheduled to hit theaters on July 11, 2008.

One of my very favorite topics of film-related conversation would have to be that of the infamous "horror remake." Could be a J-horror re-imaganing, a revisit with truly classic material, or a quick-buck PG-13 junkpile that shames the name of its predecessor. (Heck, I posted a similar article last March, and I even went as far as to bang out a master list of horror remakes at my very own website!) Well, apparently the movie geeks over at Premiere.com are also big time horror nerds as well, because they've just posted their list of the 15 Best Horror Remakes.

OK, having just perused their 15 choices, I gotta say: I know it's got to be hard coming up with 15 really good horror remakes, but jeeeeez. Just lower it to a Top 10 and get The Fog, The Amityville Horror and 13 Ghosts OUTTA there. And ... am I on crack or did the Premiere squad neglect to mention Cronenberg's The Fly AND Carpenter's The Thing??? I mean, good job on throwing some love towards The Blob, Dark Water and the 1978 version of Body Snatchers, but come on! You guys omitted the two best horror remakes ever made!!!

(I'll include their full list after the jump, just to incite some discussion, but definitely check out the Premiere article before you dive in, you crazy gorehounds, you.)

I constantly complain about modern special effects, how CGI creatures don't look realistic enough, but I have to admit this is pretty hypocritical of me. I love the work of effects legend Ray Harryhausen, and his models were never believable. There was a lot more inventiveness and craftsmanship in his effects, though, and there's no denying that the films he worked on have a creative spark that many modern fantasy films lack. Sometimes I think that my preference for model work over CGI has to do with their tangible appearance, but then that doesn't explain my forgiveness for the composite shots in Harryhausen films, which typically appeared as flat as today's worst CGI.

Anyway, despite our now having films with great computer effects like Jurassic Park and Peter Jackson's King Kong, Harryhausen will never be forgotten. Earlier this year, the 86-year-old received a well-deserved George Pal Memorial Award at the Saturn Awards and he was celebrated in the documentary The Sci-Fi Boys, which screened at Tribeca. Now, thanks to YouTube, someone is presenting all of Harryhausen's creatures and spaceships in a chronologically edited montage. Check it out below: