Alright, this could be tricky… Unfortunately I have not written a review directly after seeing each of my most recent movies, therefore this might get messy.
I have seen three movies in the past week, beginning with “Narnia”, followed by “Syriana” and then last night at midnight “King Kong”. Which one will I remember a year from now? Which one was the most disappointing? Which one would I sit through again? Read on and you’ll soon find out the answers to these fascinating questions.
Let’s start with “Narnia: The Lion The Witch and the Wardrobe”. It was a good movie. Notice that I didn’t just get overly excited or descriptive. I think that it stayed true to the spirit of the book, and captured the essence of what I remember from my childhood. The more I think about the movie though, the more I feel that it was merely competent in its delivery. 1. Aslan: OK 2. Children: Mostly OK 3. Talking Animals: I liked the wolves, nothing else was all that great 4. White Witch: The BBC version was way better 5. Mr Tumnus: Also superior in the BBC version. So, we have established that “Narnia” is not the answer to any of my stated questions.
Not to get too far off the subject, but since I mentioned in talking about “Narnia” that in retrospect I came to reevaluate my opinion of the film, I must make a brief mention of “Walk the Line”. In my next blog I want to discuss two things: Sin in movies and how it is most often portrayed. And, why do Christians overlook sin in some contexts, yet rise up against it in other contexts. I will compare a film I have seen (Walk the Line) to one I haven’t (Brokeback Mountain).
Now, back to the current film reviews. I was looking forward to “Syriana”. To tell the truth, after a bunch of animated kid movies and watered-down PG/PG-13 films, sometimes you want your film characters to stop pulling their punches. “Syriana” looked like it might have potential. Current events, gritty espionage, witty dialogue, and an interesting top-notch cast. It didn’t live up to my expectations. Current events… that was so Fahrenheit 9/11. I half expected Michael Moore to pop up and start asking the Oil Tycoon if he ever buys his ammo at Wal Mart. Gritty espionage… One scene of George Clooney getting a manicure doesn’t count towards the action that was promised in the trailers. I don’t want a washed-up has-been for my hero, especially if he can never break out of that mould. Witty dialogue… just like with the current events, this is old news. We know the oil companies, the politicians, the foreigners, and everyone in-between is corrupt. Give me something new and interesting. And finally the top-notch cast… It was good and everyone earned their day’s pay, but in such a sloppy movie isn’t it kind of a waste. I would rather have seen a whole movie about George Clooney’s character than sit through this mess again.
We have come to “King Kong”. I will admit, I have only had three and a half hours of sleep since seeing it last night, so there may be future revisions of my following statement. It was sweet. Take out story, dialogue, music, actors… it still would have been sweet. (I will edit the following scene as to not spoil the film for those who haven’t seen it yet) King Kong takes on like five ****** at one time. Not only does he fight these five ****** but he does it while ******* * ****. It’s not just that the fight is entertaining, but there is such raw energy and Kong has character and personality, and personality goes a long way. There are homages to the old King Kong film as well as major improvements. Now this isn’t to say that this movie is without its faults. I think Peter Jackson had this one run a little too long. Some scenes ran past their necessity, including the final scene between Kong, *** ****, and the *********. Why cant’ Kong *** already!? Even some of the effects shots seemed long. It’s almost like he had the money so he just kept on adding. This neglects the importance of the scene on the storytelling level and lowers it to visceral entertainment, which is fine unless you’re trying to tell a story. I thin Jackson meant to tell a story, a simple one yes, but he got sidetracked. Kind of like what Jeff Goldblum say in Jurassic Park: “They were so busy trying to figure out if they could, the never stopped to ask if they should.” Even though the dialogue wasn’t great, and the story wasn’t great, the acting was right on. Brody, Watts and Black all found who there characters were supposed to be and played them consistently throughout. Like I said, the high mark was Kong himself. Maybe that’s why the called it “King Kong”.
So here’s the answer to my questions: I will remember “King Kong” a year from now. “Syriana” was the disappointment of the bunch. And will I go back to the theater to see any of these? Probably not, “King Kong” with it’s running time and filler scenes will probably lead me to see something new. Thanks for reading. Hit me back with your thoughts and any questions.
