Slashdot Mirror
King Kong: Don't Mess With the Monkey
Noodles22 writes "King Kong: Don't Mess With the Monkey began as an audition piece for Eden Phillips. After adapting some scenes from Peter Jackson and Fran Walsh's 1996 King Kong screenplay, the natural appeal of the Kong story attracted more and more enthusiastic volunteers who generously gave of their time to make Kong a rich, funny short film. We are honoured to dedicate it to Peter Jackson, Fran Walsh, Wingnut films, and all those involved in the Lord of the Rings films, and upcoming King Kong remake."
Dude, that is what film directors do.
not only was that not "rich" or "funny" but those were the LONGEST TEN MINUTES OF MY LIFE
*
Don't read this if you want to enjoy the film. This is critique for the teaser trailer, not the film. If you are still reading this, you're free to continue, but don't bitch about me being such a severe critic.
*
I wasn't impressed by the trailer at all. it looks like another DV feature made by another self-acclaimed director-wannabee. THe trailer consists of mere 20 cuts (live shots) and several titles with busy typesets, some of the live shots are just static scenery shots, and ALL actions take place in one location. Cinematography (video-) didn't intensify the suspense successfully when danger is coming close to the characters --only with help of sound effects does the teaser highten suspense marginally. Actors' --especially the female lead-- performance is weak. In combination with poorly executed cinematography, it is a tough sell. Overall teaser has too little to show, no surprise, no eye-catching events. Was I teased? --no.
Sorry to be critical, but I've seen many of this type of DV features/shorts, and this particlar one doesn't stand out from the rest. I decided not to spend my time downloading and watching it. Nevertheless, I want to congratulate the people involved in this project for completion of the project and I do acknowledge their painstaking efforts to complete this DV film.
If "to make a film" is the final goal for a film maker, his work is accomplished once film is made. "To entertain audience" is the goal, there will be no finishing line to that goal. Life is learning.
And besides, how many people would sit through five years of Corwin locked in the dungeon, anyways?
I want a new world. I think this one is broken.
Frankenstein
Dracula
Jekyl & Hyde
King Kong.
PLEASE, enough of this recycled crap already. Someone please come up with something new... Or I will, damn it!
"Would it kill you to put down the toilet seat?" -- Maya Angelou
So if Hitler's favourite colour was blue, blue must be the colour of evil.
Lookit... if you were a film director who had just pulled off the greatest gamble in film history, made a three-peat at the box office AND the Oscars (nominations at least), successfully taking three unfilmable books and made them into three monster hits AND critical darlings, got nominated for everything and won a boatload of awards, and made the studio and yourself more money than a mere mortal could ever spend, and you were then given carte blanche to make whatever film you wanted to make as your next project; are you telling me you wouldn't make the movie you'd wanted to make since you were six years old? Of course this is a masturbatory effort for PJ, but knowing him, he'll probably make it interesting, and people will line up to watch it, good or bad.
And please remember that he's not making this movie for us, he's making it for himself. After bringing us the LOTR trilogy, I'd say he earned it.
-- This sig for rent.
Please don't tell me we're going to hear about every thing related to Peter Jackson now. Ok, I gave you breathing room on Lord of the Rings since that's obviously nerd territory. But King Kong? What's the relevance?
This is going to be a big dissappointment for fans of LOTR expecting more of the same from Peter Jackson.
It seems to me that there is an inherent contradiction between the title of your post and the first sentence. Jackson made his career with edgy genre-busting films. In fact, LotR is in many ways his worst work in the last 10 years. That does not mean that it's not a fine pice of work, but compared to Dangerous Creatures and even The Frighteners the story is lacking. Really not any fault of the writers, it was just the naure of that wondrous hydra of a narrative that Tolkien created, that you really can't condense or summarize it successfully.
The nice thing about Kong (70 years old, not 50 years old), is that since it was written as a story to be told from start to finish in 100 minutes, it is the perfect size for a film adaptation. There is enough there to fill the attention of the audience for an afternoon, with enough wiggle room for Jackson to put his own stamp on it.
LotR fans are not necessarily Peter Jackson fans and Peter Jackson fans are not necessarily fans of LotR. I'd much rather see him do another Dangerous Creatures or Forgotten Silver (that managed to bamboozle fair number of New Zealaders into thinking that he really did discover that all of the major inovations we take for granted with film were invented in New Zealand and lost.) In fact, Jackson quipped that he promised Fran Walsh, his partner (professionally and personally) a low-budget, low-stress art film.
Don't forget what a flop the remake of Godzilla was.
The big problem with Godzilla is that the original Godzilla was a product of a specific time (post-WWII reconstruction) and place (Japan). Godzilla just does not translate well.
But on the other hand, we see a remake of The Wolfman about every 10 years, a remake of Dracula every 10 years. A remake of Hamlet ever generation. Why not do the Gilglamesh of monster movies, King Kong?
This is going to be a big dissappointment for fans of LOTR expecting more of the same from Peter Jackson.
Well aren't you a cheery ray of sunshine and opinion.
1) If a LOTR fan goes into King Kong expecting some relation to LOTR just because Jackson is involved, he or she deserves to be let down. He or she is an idiot.
2) So, Peter Jackson must now only choose projects which relate to or will appeal to LOTR fans lest he let them down when they wander aimlessly into a theatre expecting hobbits.
3) People still love LOTR, people still love King Kong. Your personal preferences notwithstanding, people seem interested in both.
4) "not to deride Peter's directing talent" What? Saying his new movie, which hasn't been completed yet, is going to be a flop, that he's making a poor choice, that isn't deriding his abilities?
5) I'm sorry... what the hell did Peter Jackson have to do with the Godzilla remake or its being a flop? Nothing. Absolutely freaking nothing.
So you love LOTR. Yay for you. But this pontificating is about as weighty as a Star Trek vs Star Wars argument.
I also read something 'somewhere': hot air rises. Judging from the +5 Interesting mod on this puffery, I'd say that theory is proving true.
- I am made of meat.
I thought King Kong was a tailless primate, an ape, not a monkey. It's annoying to see such mistakes. A least Planet of the Apes are an accurate title.
Ocean's Eleven did pretty well at the box office. It was a remake. I thought the Rat Pack version was better. Some remakes do okay. The more detached the viewing public is from the original source the better. I distinctly remember watching Planet of the Apes as a kid. However, I only have fuzzy memories when it comes to King Kong or Mighty Joe Young (or any other ape movie).
I wonder if I could mod an old version of Donkey Kong before King Kong hits the theaters.
What do you mean my sig is repetitive? What do you mean my sig is repetitive? What do you mean....