Today is "teh awesome," as you fancy internet kids say.
This morning I had to read through that first draft of my proposal. While it was not the greatest thing ever, it wasn't half-terrible either. So there you go. Now, I can *legitimately* spend the rest of the day reading a novel (Dan Simmons's Ilium - it's awesome). Tomorrow, I have to download some census data and look up some maps for Chicago and Phoenix. But today, I play!
Anyway, I mentioned that I saw King Kong yesterday. [To note: I guess you should know spoilers technically follow. But if you don't know how King Kong ends... seriously? what the fuck?] For the most part, I really dug it. It was fun etc. It has all those themes about beauty and the beast, and man trying to conquer nature, and the subtle indictment of Westen man for slavery and things like that. Sure, whatever. [Sidebar: The depiction of the natives really, REALLY left something to be desired. I get they're supposed to be "Other" and scary to our Westen sensibilities. But do they need to be goddamned batshit insane?]
What seriously bugged me about the movie is that it's like it's two movies (unsuccessfully) smashed into one. Now, I don't want to be *that guy.* You know - that guy (or worse: fanboy) who just whines and complains about the thing that everyone else thinks is cool....
But, huge chunks of this movie just didn't work for me. All right, here it is. Kong - as a character - is clearly fucking aces and awesome. Kong is such an amazing "special effect" that I never stopped to think "That is an amazing special effect." Kong just looked REAL. More than looking real, he just ACTED real. I was in love with the way he kept "posturing" for Anne Darrow, thumping his chest and roaring at her, trying to communicate. I loved how, when she was playing "dead," Kong sat there and ate bamboo. I love how he acts (mostly) like a gorilla, albeit a maladjusted one (not surprsing - since social animals from apes to elephants tend to have "bad attitudes" when not properly socialized, which isolated Kong presumably would not be). Parts of the movie feel almost *documentary,* not in style, but in the sense that we are witness to private moments of alien being. It was meticulous and beautiful.
BUT in this same movie .... we have guys who shoot bugs off each from machine guns. There are also movie stars who swing from vines and shoot guns. Not to mention the protracted battles with dinosaurs hanging from vines. Plus, there are skating gorillas. Essentially, outside the amazing and exciting bits, there is a lot of stupid, B-movie schlock and filler here. [Along those lines, Peter Jackson needs to end his love affair with slow motion. Seriously, there are other techniques to impart emotion my man.] I know this might sound stupid. I feel almost stupid for just typing it. But this is the core of it: I could NOT reconcile the stupid parts of this movie with the near flawless reproduction of Kong-as-real-beast. It just didn't work. I think I could have watched one or the other: the pure B-movie goofiness *or* a (fairly) realistic telling of the story. But this weird mix of the two? It just kept tossing me out of the movie, it kept fucking with my sense of the *tone.*
As great as Jackson is, he really needs to reign in his inner-fanboy. The weakest parts of The Lord of the Rings have this exact same problem. I give you: almost anything Legolas does (surfing down stairs on a shield, crawling on the backs of trolls, sliding down the trunks of elephants etc), Gimli's stupid jokes, and WAY too much backlighting and slow-motion for elves. Sure, it's nitpicky ... But it's the same problem: I'm tossed out of this very realistic Middle Earth into a Saturday morning cartoon by these antics.
I dunno. Maybe I'm just a grumpy old doucebag.... ?
Have a good one peoples.
This morning I had to read through that first draft of my proposal. While it was not the greatest thing ever, it wasn't half-terrible either. So there you go. Now, I can *legitimately* spend the rest of the day reading a novel (Dan Simmons's Ilium - it's awesome). Tomorrow, I have to download some census data and look up some maps for Chicago and Phoenix. But today, I play!
Anyway, I mentioned that I saw King Kong yesterday. [To note: I guess you should know spoilers technically follow. But if you don't know how King Kong ends... seriously? what the fuck?] For the most part, I really dug it. It was fun etc. It has all those themes about beauty and the beast, and man trying to conquer nature, and the subtle indictment of Westen man for slavery and things like that. Sure, whatever. [Sidebar: The depiction of the natives really, REALLY left something to be desired. I get they're supposed to be "Other" and scary to our Westen sensibilities. But do they need to be goddamned batshit insane?]
What seriously bugged me about the movie is that it's like it's two movies (unsuccessfully) smashed into one. Now, I don't want to be *that guy.* You know - that guy (or worse: fanboy) who just whines and complains about the thing that everyone else thinks is cool....
But, huge chunks of this movie just didn't work for me. All right, here it is. Kong - as a character - is clearly fucking aces and awesome. Kong is such an amazing "special effect" that I never stopped to think "That is an amazing special effect." Kong just looked REAL. More than looking real, he just ACTED real. I was in love with the way he kept "posturing" for Anne Darrow, thumping his chest and roaring at her, trying to communicate. I loved how, when she was playing "dead," Kong sat there and ate bamboo. I love how he acts (mostly) like a gorilla, albeit a maladjusted one (not surprsing - since social animals from apes to elephants tend to have "bad attitudes" when not properly socialized, which isolated Kong presumably would not be). Parts of the movie feel almost *documentary,* not in style, but in the sense that we are witness to private moments of alien being. It was meticulous and beautiful.
BUT in this same movie .... we have guys who shoot bugs off each from machine guns. There are also movie stars who swing from vines and shoot guns. Not to mention the protracted battles with dinosaurs hanging from vines. Plus, there are skating gorillas. Essentially, outside the amazing and exciting bits, there is a lot of stupid, B-movie schlock and filler here. [Along those lines, Peter Jackson needs to end his love affair with slow motion. Seriously, there are other techniques to impart emotion my man.] I know this might sound stupid. I feel almost stupid for just typing it. But this is the core of it: I could NOT reconcile the stupid parts of this movie with the near flawless reproduction of Kong-as-real-beast. It just didn't work. I think I could have watched one or the other: the pure B-movie goofiness *or* a (fairly) realistic telling of the story. But this weird mix of the two? It just kept tossing me out of the movie, it kept fucking with my sense of the *tone.*
As great as Jackson is, he really needs to reign in his inner-fanboy. The weakest parts of The Lord of the Rings have this exact same problem. I give you: almost anything Legolas does (surfing down stairs on a shield, crawling on the backs of trolls, sliding down the trunks of elephants etc), Gimli's stupid jokes, and WAY too much backlighting and slow-motion for elves. Sure, it's nitpicky ... But it's the same problem: I'm tossed out of this very realistic Middle Earth into a Saturday morning cartoon by these antics.
I dunno. Maybe I'm just a grumpy old doucebag.... ?
Have a good one peoples.
VIEW 6 of 6 COMMENTS
I feel like Jackson has a sense of humor about what he does. It came across in the Rings trilogy and it comes across in Kong. Honestly, most film makers from down under seem to have this sensibility. Ever seen Dead Alive? It could be a truly horrifying and distrubing movie, but turns out being really funny and entertaining. Maybe that's just how they like their movies down there.
Just my two cents.