That's right, I'm jumping in.
I trust Andrew J. Root's review of movies Nearly implicitly, for it is he and his S/O that have introduced some of my favourites to me in recent years. I do appear to side with Angelo though who hates King Kong. (click the links on the side of this panel)
All is not as it appears though. Seriously, Angelo, you're quoting Ebert? Fuck me, dude that hack picks shit three times out of five. I only want Your opinion because at least I can put some stock in that. Even if you agree with Ebert I assume that your views are More valid by far as to why.
Now back to the RotoRooter. I really Do trust your movie instincts and I am gloriously happy that you went to see a monster film. (Which really doesn't strike me as your style, but there it is). It is a shame you chose to see the Kong though. In short, the original Kong was only good because my parents let me stay up late to see it.
I am still Irate that Hollywood had him beat Godzilla, which was shit and which I state in Root's blog. Beyond this, I have to say that Hollywood's love affair with monkeys has become both tragic and pathetic. Planet of the Apes was bearable in a cultish, *camp* (yes I used "camp" deal with it) sort of way. Mighty Joe Young was tripe. Even Tim Burton (gawblessim) failed in doing a remake of planet of the apes.
I cannot understand why there hasn't been a 'rampage' style movie with Apes yet. Y'know? like The Birds, Empire of the Ants, Night of the Lepus and Attack of the Killer Tomatoes. Think of it! They could go with the more diminutive but dextrous macaques or capuchins and instill some True Terror. Fucking yankees.
Angelo, Andrew: for various reasons that are incongruous with what you say, you are Both right. Next time watch Aeon Flux. Duh.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
If a film maker put half the effort into making a Godzilla remake instead of that (to borrow your term) turd that came out in '97 or so, then I'd go see it. I went to see a well made film, rather than a monster flick. Kong didn't really strike me as a monster, but more of a misunderstood animal. He's really big, and he shows his emotions in ways that humans find threatening so they kill him. Godzilla was a monster because he didn't seem to have any motivation for his destructive rampage. He's a monster because he doesn't have a heart.
He's a monster because he doesn't have a heart.
Just like Bill O'Reilly.
Full thoughts on Kong still forthcoming, though the post is currently so long and my blogging time so limited that I'm considering keeping it in private mode, lest I go the Jackson route and trap my audience, taking 3 hours to tell an hour-long story.
As for my quoting of Ebert, perhaps I should've emphasized that I was quoting him ironically. My point was that he gave a complete pan of an earlier work of Jackson's outlining the exact same failings of Kong, which he tossed 4 stars at.
uh, sorry Angelo, I was reactive because it hit me how much I dislike Hollywood and Monkeys together. Sorry.
Didn't seem to have Motivation? Sorry Andrew, but it takes a lot of heart to cope with someone Nuking your Home by saving their city.
I readily admit that the Hollywoodized Godzilla of '97 or so Sucked, not that Matthew Broderick or the Wallflowers with their v.poor rendition of Bowie were any help there whatsoever.
The Real Godzilla films are awesome because it was a guy on a shoestring who wanted to tell a story (which Did have relevant themes for its day)and he did what he could. Kind of like us making a film.
-Which we should all do...
Post a Comment