Prince Kong

So, I saw Kong yesterday.

I was mostly unimpressed. Long story short: some things were underdeveloped while others were left sprawling. An interesting take on the story, but ultimately unsatisfying. If you really wanna go on, or if you need something long to read 'cause you're bored, here's my take on King Kong:

The Ape:
Great effects and a tremendously feeling performance by a CG character. After Gollum/Smeagol, this is unsurprising, especially considering Jackson once again employed Andy Serkis for Kong's movements. The effects people in Jackson's shop and Jackson himself have the keenest eye for this kinda thing, and their decisions when it come to these effects show a brilliance that would have been welcome in what I thought was an underachieving Star Wars prequel trilogy.

Adrian Brody:
One of the underdeveloped parts of the movie. I know, it's kinda hard to be a "leading man" when the protagonist is a 25 foot ape, and I know Jack didn't have much of a part in the '33 version, but still... there was a lot of room to develop the relationship between Ann and Jack, especially when it came to perhaps her conflicting feelings about him and Kong. In the end, I'm unsatisfied by that relationship, and that bugs me. Sure, they gave him a chase scene, but that was really just gratuitous.

Jack Black:
Not inspired or anything, but solid. He's always the little boy in a man's body, and his enthusiasm and energy certainly work in the part of the showman. Woulda been nice to see a little more self-doubt, though. I would think after losing about 20 guys and a couple of good friends he might have a little remorse.

The First Hour:
I think I'm one of the few who didn't mind the trip to the island. Coulda done without the whole FirstMate/kid story line, but still, I appreciate that we get a full sketch of the characters before we put them into the proverbial Lion's (or should I say Ape's?) Mouth. Again, I don't think the sketches were drawn particularly well, but it's something. It's about the journey, not the destination after all, right? And ya don't know how far you've come unless you know where you started. =)

The Second Hour:
It was really the second hour that kinda killed the movie as far as I'm concerned. Natives were kinda needlessly creepy. The bronto chase was okay. But after that, did we really need a 20-minute multi-dino rumble? I think an extended one-dino fight woulda been fine. The log fight: I wish the Mate and the Kid woulda died. That was really a pointless story line. The bugs were unsatisfying too. Creepy and amazingly realistic, but did we need to see the guy get swallowed by worms? Would the Kid really been able to shoot bugs off of Jack's face with a Thompson? And after 30 billion bugs are coming outta the woodwork, 3 guys with machine guns (one of them on a vine, admittedly) are able to quell the threat? The thing with Ann and Kong was good, though. It establishes their relationship quite well, though I'm left to wonder: what did Kong do with all the other sacrifices and why not Ann? Sure, I like blondes too, but....

The Third Hour:
Kind of a mixed bag. I understand why Jack and Ann left the show, and the why/how of how Kong breaks out is done well. But then there's the unnecessary chase scene and Ann's appearance out of nowhere. The skating scene is cute, and then there's one of the most famous endings in movie history. But when it's finally all over, I just kinda get the feeling that everyone walks away and that's it. Heck, I'm not even sure if, after what I saw, Jack and Ann end up together!

Naomi Watts:
I wanted to end on a high note. =) She's mesmerizingly beautiful in parts of this movie and infectiously cute in others. But even aside from that, she does a great job of portraying emotions without ever saying a word. Especially when you consider she's emoting towards a green screen. I dunno about Oscar (though the buzz seems to be kinda leanin' that way), but the girl did a good job.

In the end, though, I think I liked Narnia better.

Outlier

I like weird stuff.

Well, not weird... maybe off center. You draw a Venn Diagram, and my circle will most likely intersect most of yours, but there's definitely a nice sized section where they won't. Not surprisingly, I think you're missing out on that stuff, but then again, you'd say the same about your own odd little section.

Anyway...

I finished watching Firefly again last night. Yeah, I'm usually a sci-fi guy, so my particular love for this short-lived series isn't a shock to anyone who knows me. Thing with this show is - it's not really about sci-fi. Sure, it's in space and there are in fact spacecraft and the oppressive "Alliance" government, but in this show, all of that is pretty incidental.

It's really mostly about the characters. Actually, let me rephrase: It's about the people, 'cause in this story, there aren't any aliens or angry robots. The cast is great and each owns his own little piece of emotional territory without being mired in it or denying others the chance to wander through. There's humor and action and all of it feels organic - given the people and the situation, each scene is pretty much what should happen and nothing feels forced.

And unlike Star Trek and Star Wars, there's no underlying moral plot. In fact, moral absolutes are pretty scarce. Heck, the most "respectable" characters in the show are a prostitute and a fugitive doctor. Things are sufficiently murky to create good stories.

And then there's the dialogue. Dialogue does a lot for me - sets up pace, tone and a lot of the time, personality and meaning. Firefly's got some great dialogue. Not snappy in a fast-paced, Aaron Sorkin kinda way, but quick, biting, and often whimsical. One of my favorite exchanges:
--Simon (guarded): "Well, she's always been... special."
--Wash (in disbelief): "Yeah, but psychic? That sounds like science fiction!"
--Zoe (deadpan): "You live on a space ship, dear."
--Wash (confused): "So?"
Oh, and there's a smattering of Chinese swearing. =)

I could go on, but this is plenty long enough now, and certainly too long to eventually get to this: I really like Firefly. If you haven't seen any of it yet, I highly recommend it. And if you're looking for something to put on your Netflicks list... well, you could certainly do worse than to take a chance on the 1st disc of Firefly or Serenity (out on Dec. 20th). I think you've been missing out.

Response to Rob

I was gonna leave a quick comment on Rob's post about female superhero movies (essentially, he asks why this genre tends to skew toward critical failure), as follows:

"In the end, we have to get Biblical:
C begets A, which in turn begets B."

but then I felt I needed to explain myself and that turned out kinda long, so I thought I might just post it here instead.

*****

When you look at these 3 particular movies, you see how it happens:
--Catwoman was a complete bastardization of the Batman idea. It was a spinoff, but with nothing to spin off from. As such, it floundered and had to completely come off the core concept in order to attempt to be completely independent. And I haven't even seen it.
--Elektra did have something to spin off from, but DareDevil was not good in itself, so it had a bad start. And not knowing the comic book center of the character, I'd have to ask: why was she fighting villains from VanHelsing? A werewolf? Was there a witch in there? No direction = bad movie.
--As for Aeon Flux, it's the toughest movie of the 3 to pull off conceptually. The original cartoon had the oddest feel and pacing to it, aside from the crazy and fantastical "physical" elements. It was also a cult thing, which is always tough to bring into the mainstream, 'cause either you keep it true to the original and alienate the broader audience or do what I suspect they did with this: change it enough to make it for a broader audience. Having Charleze Theron in the role really speaks to the latter.

Hollywood execs aren't the most original bunch, so basically, they're pushing to be "original" by spinning old concepts. I think it's what they're doing with these characters and they're failing miserably trying to make tradional hero movies but with girls. Heck, that normally doesn't work even when the heroes are guys. Plus, I don't know how much of the production teams are avid fans of these characters. You're gonna tell me the director of Elektra used to read her comic books as a kid? Aeon Flux's producer used to avidly record Liquid TV? Somehow, I doubt that. And that transcends the gender issue: Hulk was direct by Ang frikin' Lee and that movie blew.

On the other hand, you have movies like Batman Begins and the X-Mens, where the people working on the films really care about the characters 'cause they grew up with them (the cure for C), so that might at least partially explain why they tend to be better products (answer for A), which lead to more critical acclaim (there's for B).

I think this also holds true for the TV ideas, by the way. Buffy and Alias (and to a lesser extent Dark Angel) had more success because they were pushed to be as good as their creators' visions. These shows were the brain children of people like Joss Whedon and JJ Abrahams, guys who've shown how hard they can push an idea and how hard they'll work and fight for it. The shows had heart because of it and that can make for a good run.

Just heard...

Aaron Sorkin may be coming back to TV! Yaaaaaaay!

The idea is as follows: Studio 7 on the Sunset Strip would be a behind the scenes look at a SNL-style sketch show.

Sorkin kind of tried this with Sports Night in the late ‘90s – behind the scenes of the SportsCenter-type flagship show on a fictional #3 rated sports channel CSC. Six Feet Under’s Peter Krause played the romanitcally challenged “star” next to his happy-go-luckier co-anchor Josh Charles (of Dead Poet’s Society and S.W.A.T.). Felicity Huffman (Deperate Housewives) played the show’s producer and Krause’s wannabe love interest. Playing co-producers were the lovely Sabrina Lloyd (Sliders, Numb3rs) and Sorkin alum Joshua Malina (who is now looking for work seeing as how his candidate is not THE candidate on West Wing), playing his character as typically brilliant but neurotic. It was a great ensemble cast with predictably outstanding writing. The show was great, but then again, I find most of Aaron Sorkin’s stuff to be way above par.

I mean West Wing, A Few Good Men, and The American President are all his creations along with Sports Night, but after a quick IMDB search I also find he worked on The Rock (I’m now sure some of the snappier dialogue is his and is part of what makes that movie so unabashedly great, Jerry Bruckheimer notwithstanding), Enemy of the State, and was asked by Spielberg to polish Schindler’s List. I’d have the man’s baby if I were a woman and he were more attractive.

So now, how can this new project possibly be better? Matthew Perry. He would play the brilliant comedy writer who’s asked to take charge of the sketch show. He had that short stint on West Wing, so he’s familiar with Sorkin and we all know him from Friends.


This show’s gonna have a ton of potential. I can’t wait!

Frikin' 'Phins!

You're 4-7. Down 20 in the 4th quarter. Been taken to school all day long.

And you COME BACK ?????? 24-23 !!!!!

There're enough teams with crappy records all over the NFL, there is absolutley no need to become mediocre! 5-7 does nothing but get you further away from the QB of the future you so definitley need!

I hope to anything anyone considers holy that the Jets (ugh) lose to the Pats. At least that will keep us 2 games outta the division lead. I can't beleive that we even have the sniff of a playoff spot!

So I say again - Frikin' 'Phins! and Frikin' Saban! How dare you turn around my crappy franchise so soon. Punk....