 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
141.153.175.166
Well...Jumpin Jack Black is a gas gas gas...not
Peter Jackson's accountant is going to love it more than anyone, but I think the reaction from the audience was a good sign for its box office possibilities.
I really enjoyed it, but I don't think it was a "superb" movie in the way the original film was. It was incredibly too long at 3 hours and the beginning dragged on to the point where one wanted to yell "the island is over there...geez, the friggin boat is slower than the S.S. Minow!"
The cast, with the exception of Naomi Watts, is totally secondary to the film. Jack Black plays a grown-up for once and he isn't horrible.
Adrian Brody could have been replaced by anyone. What's the big deal with this guy?
The key to the film is the relationship between a beat-up Kong and the very similar, Naomi Watts. Jackson's film does work on that level. I didn't see anyone cry in the theater, which was the word about some critics who saw it weeks ago. What a bunch of wimps. I think they should cry more for the actors who are losing jobs to CGI.
On a visual level, Kong is stunning. The poor guy looks like he got lost walking through Brooklyn carrying a map and his wallet in his back pocket. Jackson made Kong look tired and beat up, yet he exhibits enormous brutality and strength when called upon. He is a far more sympathetic character than many human characters in the last twenty years of Hollywood films.
The conclusion above NYC atop the Empire State Building is going to be the most abused home theater demo in history. It is far more blood-pumping than any Star Wars or LOTRs sequence.
Jackson needs to trim the bloat.
Yeah, even more than the Eagles:Hell Freezes Over
"I think this place is restricted Wang, so don't tell em you're Jewish"
Follow Ups:
I just saw it. Jack Black should stick to flims like "School of Rock"Overall IMO it was a disappointment. The effect in Jurassic Park, a 1992 film are better. The contrast was to hot(white crush)which leads me to belive, unless they fix it, the DVD video quality will suck.
nt.
s
You arer certainly entitled to express your informed opinion, but Peter Jackson's KING KONG is brilliant entertainment! My wife and I saw it this afternoon and LOVED it. HIGHLY RECOMMENDED.One question: Have you seen this film and found it lacking or are you just blowing smoke because you don't like the idea that it was made in the first place? Your short take suggests the latter.
AuPh
Thanks for the uncalled for insults. Your assumptions are as off as your taste.I did see the film yesterday and found it utterly tiresome. The first hour was completely missable. The CGI was not entertaining to me at all. There was little interesting or to care about with the characters, it was painfully slow moving, had very little depth of story, and Kong was not particularly sympathetic. Jack Black's line at the end of the movie was completely laughable.
How anyone with any level of experience can be so amused by this sad effort is beyond me.
as
... I wouldn't go so far as to call his marginally negative review a SLAM. Conversely, it comes across as rather tepid, to use a better analogy. His criticism hedges, evoking a feeling of underlying admiration for Jackson's achievement at the same time as he dissects aspects of the film he finds overly long or problematic.AuPh
> > > "Thanks for the uncalled for insults. Your assumptions are as off as your taste." < < <I asked you a sincere question because there are folks around here who do "blow smoke" when it comes to reviewing movies they haven't seen; apparently they do this because they don't care for the subject matter and want to stick their two cents worth in. I wasn't judging you, just asking for more than a cursory blow-off of the movie.
> > > "I did see the film yesterday and found it utterly tiresome. The first hour was completely missable. The CGI was not entertaining to me at all. There was little interesting or to care about with the characters, it was painfully slow moving, had very little depth of story, and Kong was not particularly sympathetic. Jack Black's line at the end of the movie was completely laughable." < < <
Well you are entitled to your informed opinion even if, in my not-so-humble informed opinion you're dead WRONG! While Jack Black's performance isn't Academy Award material Naomi Watts ability to play against the CGI Kong may very well be; this was absolutely brilliant acting, IMO. Kong was seemlessly rendered, some of the best CGI work I've ever seen or could imagine. Peter Jackson has created a new benchmark for future CGI effects, in my estimation, but that's secondary to the majesty of this film.
Yes it was slow moving and probably could've used a little judicious editing, but I personally liked the longer shipboard character development because it made deaths of crewmen on Skull Island that much more poignant.
> > > "How anyone with any level of experience can be so amused by this sad effort is beyond me." < < <
Well, you know, some of us creative types do have a greater imagination, but since I have no idea what you're background for appreciating the arts is like I'll reserve judgment! ;^)
AuPh
I might have dozed off otherwise.Here's a review more in line with my take.
a
Kong may just have to pay a visit to the SF Chronicle and straighten a few folks out. The "giant penises with teeth" are obviously related to leeches; this sounds a bit like a personal problem the SF Chronicle critic may have had instead of a CGI faux pas in the film. ;^)The additional backstory given to secondary characters adds even more humanity to the story and the exploitive nature of the Carl Denham character. Their lives did mean something, at least to me, as I actually found their sacrifices more poignant than if they were treated as merely incidental collateral loss to Denham's dreams of success.
BTW, I'll see your SF Chronicle review and raise you over a 120 from Rotten Tomatoes (nearly 85% positive):
to it this weekend. I'll have to pay in spades but wtf. Upcoming films at the Angelica look OK anyway (But I'd never tell her that)
----------------------------------------------------------
"Do I have to spell it out?
C --- H ---- E ---E ---- S --- E
A --- N --- D
O ---- N ---- I ---- O ---- N ---- S"
...that the whole process, however well done, means that actors are never in the same room with one another, as it were. It's all done with the green screen. Bad enough the post-pro and the dialog re-recording in isolation booths, but CGI adds another level to the phoniness.clark
> ...that the whole process, however well done, means that actors are never in the same room with one another, as it were.It's been done since the first days of film, when actors didn't like each other or were unavailable for some reason, some basic editing trickery or stand-ins were often substitutes. Any time an actor's back is to the camera and they're facing away, there's no guarantee it's who you think it is.
Any decent actor should be good enough to hold a convincing conversation with a lamp post.
/*Music is subjective. Sound is not.*/
(nt)
Another "advantage" perhaps of the isolated sound booth and the headphones.No real actor I've ever met thinks post-pro is a good thing.
clark
> > > "Most actors I know are theatre actors and they spit on you!" < < <My suggestion: buy them all custidores for Xmas and have them practice hitting their marks with a better brand of smokeless tobacco. ;^)
AuPh
xd
Maybe you should explain it for the majority here who are clearly scratching their heads. :o)AuPh
...a lot of spitting goes on in live, ensemble acting -- which you rarely get in the movies -- the mics in the isolation booths see all the spit -- I'll let you in on the joke.Oh! Already have.
clark
Operative word: "Should".Perhaps you are unaware that there is a longstanding movement within moviedom for what's called "production sound". Directors and soundmen who go for that ideal realize that the drama and the comedy are all better when the actors work off each other.
Does the phrase "filmed before a live studio audience" strike a bell? Why do they go to the trouble?
clark
Yep, ideally everyone should be in the same room playing off each other, but a good director can get good performances from talented actors in less than ideal circumstances. Of course, this assumes they wouldn't allow less than talented actors in front of a camera :)> Does the phrase "filmed before a live studio audience" strike a bell? Why do they go to the trouble?
Because the canned laugh tracks were becoming self-parodying, and as stand-up comedians got shows in the 70's they found it was easier to get them to play to a crowd instead of a camera. Sometimes a live audience is actually a bad thing, as the crowd gets restless through multiple takes; it depends on the actors, the material and the crowd.
/*Music is subjective. Sound is not.*/
In the original Kong, I doubt Fay Wray was being traipsed up the Empire State Building. Seems to me CGI is simply a more sophisticated way to do what film maker's have been doing for years. At least in terms of films such as Kong. Now, CGI in James Bond films, that is another matter.
...one review mentioned that the famous misty island has now been replaced with detail-loaded scenery and denizens. Isn't misty scarier?clark
;^)
"He is a far more sympathetic character than many human characters in the last twenty years of Hollywood films."That's what I was afraid of ;)
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
