Hollywood's going to have it Tough-KONG!!!

NY POST ^ | 12/12/05 | vanity and NY post

[rang1995]

ALL HAIL THE 'KONG'ERING HERO OF THIS KOLOSSALLY EXCITING NEW KLASSIC

By LOU LUMENICK

In this photo provided by Universal Studios, Ann Darrow (Naomi Watts) shares a quiet moment at sunrise with Kong atop the Empire State Building, whose heights he has scaled in his flight from the streets of New York City, in "King Kong." Photo: AP Photo/Universal Studios Email Archives Print Reprint

December 12, 2005 -- Rating: KING KONG The year's best movie.Running time: 188 minutes. Rated PG-13 (frightening adventure, violence, scary images). Wednesday at the Empire, the Union Square, the Chelsea West, others.

BREAK out the popcorn and prepare to be blown away. "King Kong" is the most pulse- pounding and heart-stirring romantic adventure since "Titanic."

Peter Jackson's stupendous, supersized remake not only pays loving tribute to the 1933 classic, it elaborates on the "Beauty and the Beast" story in smart, awe-inspiring ways that will have audiences repeatedly bursting into applause — and reaching for their handkerchiefs as the big ape heads for his date with destiny on the Empire State Building

Surprisingly nimble for a three-hour epic with a $207 million budget, this "Kong" spends its first 20 minutes sketching a vivid panorama of Depression-era New York, where Al Jolson is heard singing "I'm Sitting on Top of the World" as people huddle in makeshift Hoovervilles in Central Park.

[rang1995]

this is one of many reviews out today giving KONG 4 stars--whats hollywood going to do next spring for the Oscars?? Award a TRUE "MOVIE" where everybody leaves entertained(a throwback to old hollywood) or fall over themselves as the "critics" are for "Bareback Mountain",a Gay western.Clearly a western thats not as good,no great as high noon,shane,tombstone silverado etc etc.But throw in a gay theme, and gaga..maybe they should have made KONG with a homosexual theme and satisfy everbody

[gruffwolf]

Hey, the bestiality angle might score them some points.

[trisham]

The previews look great, and Naomi Watts was actually mentioned on Ebert & ? as a possible Oscar contender.

[rang1995]

Full review for those whose link won't work--he is a great film critic by the way!!

ALL HAIL THE 'KONG'ERING HERO OF THIS KOLOSSALLY EXCITING NEW KLASSIC
By LOU LUMENICK

---

In this photo provided by Universal Studios, Ann Darrow (Naomi Watts) shares a quiet moment at sunrise with Kong atop the Empire State Building, whose heights he has scaled in his flight from the streets of New York City, in "King Kong."
Photo: AP Photo/Universal Studios



December 12, 2005 --
Rating:
KING KONG The year's best movie.Running time: 188 minutes. Rated PG-13 (frightening adventure, violence, scary images). Wednesday at the Empire, the Union Square, the Chelsea West, others.


BREAK out the popcorn and prepare to be blown away. "King Kong" is the most pulse- pounding and heart-stirring romantic adventure since "Titanic."

Peter Jackson's stupendous, supersized remake not only pays loving tribute to the 1933 classic, it elaborates on the "Beauty and the Beast" story in smart, awe-inspiring ways that will have audiences repeatedly bursting into applause — and reaching for their handkerchiefs as the big ape heads for his date with destiny on the Empire State Building

Surprisingly nimble for a three-hour epic with a $207 million budget, this "Kong" spends its first 20 minutes sketching a vivid panorama of Depression-era New York, where Al Jolson is heard singing "I'm Sitting on Top of the World" as people huddle in makeshift Hoovervilles in Central Park.

Ann Darrow — a perfectly cast Naomi Watts in an Oscar-worthy performance — has been cleverly reinvented as a vaudevillian who is first seen doing a Charlie Chaplin impression.

When the theater closes, Ann accepts a dubious offer from Carl Denham (a very funny Jack Black), an equally desperate director-producer who wants her to fill the just-vacated size-four costumes in his latest cinematic epic.



Carl has just stolen the negative of his uncompleted film from the studio and flees in a run-down tramp steamer with Ann and Jack Driscoll (Adrien Brody), who in this version is an earnest, Arthur Miller-like playwright Denham has literally shanghaied to finish the script.

In one of many nods to the 1933 classic, Bruce Cabot, the Driscoll of the original movie, is represented by the new character of Bruce Baxter (Kyle Chandler), a cowardly ham actor who recites some of the cornier dialogue from 1933 as part of Denham's movie-within-the-movie.

The cast members think they are headed for Shanghai, but Driscoll's actual destination is of course remote Skull Island, populated by hostile natives, herds of dinosaurs — and the 50-foot King Kong, who finally makes his appearance around the 70-minute mark.

It's love at first sight as Kong lays his grizzled eyes on Ann, the first blonde he has ever seen. And Ann, who wins the primate over by performing cartwheels, soon develops a soft spot for the big guy.

But these two face more obstacles than gay cowboys in "Brokeback Mountain," albeit of a far more spectacular variety.

Dodging a herd of dinosaurs — whose realistic movements make "Jurassic Park" look positively prehistoric — is just a prelude to one of the most jaw-dropping sequences in history as Kong defends Ann from three ferocious T-Rexes — at the same time all five of them are dangling on vines above a yawning chasm.

Kong is finally subdued and brought back to New York, presented by Denham with a stage show that incorporates the original un-P.C. depiction of Skull Island's natives, as well as swatches of Max Stein's famous original score.

In a clever twist on the original, Ann Darrow isn't present in the auditorium, which Kong literally begins tearing up in rage when he notices another blonde is substituting for her on stage.

Kong storms into a magnificently realized Times Square, where he picks up and hurls a succession of blondes to the pavement before finally meeting up with Ann for their doomed tete-a-tete at the Empire State Building — although in Jackson's version they have time to check out a frozen pond in Central Park in one of the movie's most beguiling moments.

Most great movies are lucky to have a handful of moments to remember; "King Kong" has at least two dozen.

Some will complain "King Kong" is too long and way over the top — but Jackson turns self-indulgence into a virtue in what amounts to a DVD extended cut that rivets your attention for three hours.

There is truthfully little chemistry between Watts and Brodie, who does quite respectably in his first role as mainstream action hero. But that's a very minor complaint; there is a hugely satisfying and credible relationship between the movie's key couple, thanks to superb emoting by Watts and the expressive, soulful Kong.

The latter is a computer-generated character based on a dexterous performance by Andy Serkis (Gollum in "The Lord of the Rings"), who also has a substantial supporting role as the ship's cook.

"King Kong" rules — in our hearts and surely, at the box office.

lou.lumenick@nypost.com

[big'ol_freeper]

Ping

[tobyhill]

Every movie Hollywood comes out with is supposed to be the best then they turn out to be more flops. King Kong just looks too cheesy for me.

[SueRae]

I plan on seeing this one film in the movies, something I haven't done since Peter's last films. The man knows how to spell entertainment.

[rang1995]

whoops forgot about that--but it will boil down to these two--the "critics vs audiance"

[Borges]

King Kong just looks too cheesy for me.

What would expect from a movie about a big ape? Ibsen?

[SouthernFreebird]

I just never could get into the whole Kong thing. Kinda weird if you ask me. I prefer love stories between species.

[Cicero]

I confess just a few weeks ago I was saying that Hollywood has never made a remake better than the original. But maybe they've finally turned that string of bad remakes around. First "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory," and then "King Kong." The preview looked great, and the reviews have been spectacular, starting with the earlier ones from England.

[Joe 6-pack]

See what the critics are saying about "Bareback Mountain"!

"...A real turd-tickler!"

"...uh, two thumbs up!! (I think that's what they were)"

"...this movie had me hanging on the edge of another guy's seat!!"

[Darkwolf377]

this is one of many reviews out today giving KONG 4 stars--whats hollywood going to do next spring for the Oscars?? Award a TRUE "MOVIE" where everybody leaves entertained(a throwback to old hollywood) or fall over themselves as the "critics" are for "Bareback Mountain"

That's not what the Oscars are (or should be) about, though. The voters don't sit there and think "Hmm, which movie entertained the most people? OK, I guess I have to vote for that one."

I have zero interest in seeing Brokeback, but it's breaking records for per-theater box office. By your logic, that means the Oscar people will HAVE to consider it for the top awards.

Seeing how the Oscar for Best Pic has gone to such crowd pleasers as Titanic, Return of the King and Chicago, I don't see Oscar ignoring popular flicks.

A friend who has seen Kong and was only looking for a good adventure pic, btw, tells me it's very long, especially the beginning, and doesn't live up to the promise of its opening. He did like it a lot, but I think Jackson, a terrific filmmaker, has his own storytelling problems. The LOTR films--which I loved--have a lot of clunky storytelling, and a lot of silliness. (And I didn't have a problem with the multiple endings, per se, but I'm in the minority there.)

[OmegaMan]

This movie already had buzz, but now with the unanimous raves of critics I really think this movie could set records. And the fact that its opening on Wednesday could actually help its opening weekend instead of hurt; that will give it two days to build word of mouth leading to what could be sold out shows all weekend. If you want to see it Friday, Saturday, or Sunday I would suggest going early or buying tickets ahead of time.

Then comes the Oscars yet on top of all that; its positioned just right, fresh in voters minds, to make a run at Best Picture, Best Actress, etc.... If it wins those yet then it really could make a run at Titanic. Thats all without having seen it yet though heh, but I think I trust the critics on this one.

[Darkwolf377]

BTW, from what I hear, Brokeback Mountain isn't a western ala Shane, it's a drama about cowboys. I also found Tombstone and Silverado entertaining wannabes. The best westerns made in the last couple of decades, for me, were Unforgiven and Lonesome Dove, a TV miniseries. Odd how Larry McMurtry wrote the script for Brokeback, but not surprising. He's a much better writer than the shrill Annie Proulx.

[eddie willers]

"Two snaps and a circle"

[rang1995]

"That's not what the Oscars are (or should be) about, though. The voters don't sit there and think "Hmm, which movie entertained the most people? OK, I guess I have to vote for that one."

But they do--Titanic was that kind of film and commentators are always saying" they like the OLD hollywood blockbuster type films of yesterday
By the way I REALLY did make a mistake in not writing BROKEBACK,but it does seem an interesting one

[Phsstpok]

I've posted this before, but your "kinda weird" comment prompts me to do so again. Jonah Goldberg on NRO the Corner bulletin board (not really a blog) had the following to say a week or so ago:

KING KONG [Jonah Goldberg]

I'm fairly psyched for the new King Kong. Good, fun story. Peter Jackson has earned the benefit of the doubt. Etc.

But explain to me one thing. A bunch of explorers go to an island. They find a giant gorilla. That's cool. But they also find dinosaurs. They go crazy for the giant gorilla -- which is totally legit. But they're completely nonchalant about the dinosaurs. "Ho, hum, found a T-rex zzzzzz....But did you see that monkey!?!"

Isn't that a bit like saying, "Hey, leave the diamonds. Take the rubies."?

The story revolves around the cynicism of the huckster willing to exploit Kong commercially. But the guy's really a moron.

[tobyhill]

Hollywood sure doesn't do themselves any favors when their predictions are a couple of fudge packin cowboys will win Oscars. I would much rather see some cheesy ape win than some tulip lovin so-called cowboys.

[rang1995]

yes but they knew that there would already be a "jurrasic park" so they went for the box office