mmcardle

I guess the effort of making 'The Lord of the Rings' was too much for Peter Jackson. The poor guy must have been exhausted and jaded, because this is a total bomb.

First of all, the film is waaaaaaaay too long. There is too much messing about in New York before the boat even sails. Jackson obviously wants to add more depth to the characters by creating some history for each of them, but in a film like this, it's totally irrelevant. It's the relationship between Darrow and Kong that needs the screen-time, not a bunch of piffle about Darrow's career going down the tubes and Denham failing as a film-maker and Jimmy's relationship with Mr Hayes.

And there is the overkill in the action scenes. Why do Hollywood film-makers feel the need to fill the screen with longer and more extravagant action sequences? It's getting boring! The famous log-shaking scene is enough on its own, but no, we also have to have the rescue team being attacked by giant insects and worms after they have plummeted to the bottom. Hadn't they suffered enough? And while I'm at it, don't you think it was really nice of all the bugs to wait until the rescue team regained consciousness BEFORE they attacked them. Obviously, this island has very thoughtful insects. Also during this sequence, Driscoll is swarming with bugs of all kinds and Jimmy shoots them off him with a rather antiquated gun. At that range, Driscoll would have been shot to bits. Stuff like this isn't just asking the audience to believe too much, it is down-right insulting! In the original film, Kong fights a T-Rex. Even in the 1930s, the idea that a soft-skinned ape could defeat a heavily-armoured dinosaur was highly dubious, but at least Kong puts Darrow down before tackling it. Fast-forward to 2005 and we've obviously made some profound discoveries in monkey genetics, because Jackson's modern sensibilities are that Kong can beat up THREE of the blighters AND do it while he holds Darrow in one hand! Wow, this is like 'Kung-Fu Hustle' meets 'Jurassic Park'! Again, one T-Rex isn't deemed good enough for the modern audience. I confidently predict that in the next 100 years, there will have been 5 more remakes of King Kong. That seems to be the general trend since 1933 anyway. In the 2105 version, Kong will beat up 729 T-Rex's (Jackson increased it by a factor of three, so each successive remake will increase it by at least a factor of three, so this is [3 X 3] = [9 X 3] = [27 X 3] = [81 X 3] = [243 X 3] = 729). Also, Kong will be strapped into a straight-jacket, armed only with a banana skin (it's a really big one mind), while wooing Darrow with a light refrain of Sinatra's 'I'm In The Mood For Love' on the piano. And Darrow will be a man.

On to the brontosaurus stampede and is it me or is this scene all a bit Friz Freleng? The animation on the dinosaurs is very sharp, but there is a fuzziness to the live actors. It's very poor quality green screen. It just looked wrong to me. There were no dynamics between the CGI action and the live actors and so I never once believed that they were actually in the action.

The animation on Kong however, especially his facial features and expressions, is astounding. It's truly a breakthrough in CGI. Elsewhere, he's less impressive. His rampage through the streets of New York looks akin to my 7 year-old son going berserk with his Scalextric and train set.

Finally, the acting performances, or should I say, how a fine cast list was acted off the screen by a computer. Only Naomi Watts comes unscathed through this, although Adrien Brody gives a functional performance. Watts handles the emotional intensity with Kong well and it's in this area that the film is strong, after all, isn't this what it is all about? Darrow's relationship with Kong and the final tragedy of Kong's death are the driving force of this story and this is when things go well for Peter Jackson. Outside of this, it's a disaster. The normally excellent quirkiness of Jack Black falls flat and what we see is the quintessential example of a comedian who can't do straight roles. His rendition of the iconic final line "it was beauty that killed the beast" is delivered with all the pathos of a fast-food counter service waiter.

Ultimately, why bother remaking a film so faithfully, except with better special effects and prolonged actions sequences? What has it added to the story? Jackson could have shed all this chaff, made a film that was 90 minutes long, and saved a lot of sore bums in the cinema.

There seems to have been some scathing comments about this film on the IMDB. I'm no expert on Joan of Arc and so I can't comment on the historical inaccuracies. As for the performances? That's a matter of opinion or taste.

I like this film a lot. I watched it as a film, rather than as a historical document, and as such, I think it scores highly. Jeanne is portrayed as deluded, fanatical, and flawed. Is it accurate? Probably not, but then again name me one film that has EVER been historically accurate. Titanic was criticised by the family of some of the liner's crew. JFK was criticised for it's assumptions, deletions, and inaccuracies. Braveheart? Cleopatra? Don't let's get started on them......

It is impossible to make a film that accurately represents historical events. Those events are gone and the best information we have is cloudy memories or historical documents written from cloudy memories.

The best the film-maker can do is provide an interpretation of those events and entertain and/or challenge the audience. So you didn't agree with it. So what? At least it made you think and there ain't enough of that nowadays.

What was the point of making this movie? I went to see it with friends thinking the stunts might be good, but they were nowhere near as impressive as in the original. The stunt with the helicopter was original, but the rest were yawn-inducing. The script is appalling and the resolution of the relationship between Theron and Wallberg at the end was laughable (I dropped my Coke container in the cinema in shock). It was so obviously tacked on to fit the traditional Hollywood hero-gets-the-girl ending. Jason Steatham had some awful lines to deliver. Whereas the original is very tongue-in-cheek, this was too serious and the little humour in it was weak. What is it with screenwriters today? They think they can fill a script with weak one-liners and we'll all be so happy? Mark Walberg is a terrible actor. He ruined Planet of the Apes too (another poor remake). There was no chemistry between Theron and Walberg at all and them getting together at the end was clumsy and contrived. Donald Sutherland had the right idea by dying early on. He didn't need to suffer the rest of it like we did.

One of the worst films this year and possibly the worst remake of all time.

I was quite looking forward to this as I quite enjoyed Bad Boys.

It started with some wild action and wise-cracking from the cheeky duo, but as the film moved on I started to feel more and more uncomfortable.

First of all, repetition set in early. How many shootouts, car chases, and arguments between Smith and Lawrence do you need in a film? How many different ways are there to eviscerate someone? And the plot? The plot is this: Smith and Lawrence bust a drugs gang........again.

There is much jollity from Smith and Lawrence amidst total carnage. And this is my biggest problem with it. If it was just a bad movie, my comments would have ended in the last paragraph. This is a very very nasty film. Bodies explode, people are shredded by gunfire, limbs sawn off, and heads are sliced off and our two heroes wise-crack their way through all the devastation. Not just wise-crack, but laugh about it. Oh, but it's good fun to wave a gun in a humorous way in the face of a teenage boy whose only crime is to fancy your daughter. And let's have a bit of fun with some dead bodies shall we? The scene that really did it for me though, is when Lawrence is hiding in the mortuary under a sheet with a naked dead girl. I sat in the cinema feeling very uncomfortable. True, this is a "comedy thriller", but why such cheapness with human life and sickening use of women? Strangely enough, the film gets serious when Lawrence's sister or daughter(I can't remember which) is kidnapped. The wise-cracking stops and the audience is invited to share Lawrence's pain. I didn't. I wanted her to die so that Lawrence's character learned the value of human life. But, she is rescued and the moment she is safe, it's back to comedic carnage. This was rated 15 for the audience in the UK and I just worry about those young minds watching this. It should have been an 18 certificate (or R-rated in the USA). Better still, it shouldn't have been made at all.

I could forgive it for just being a bad movie, but this is sadism and cruelty dressed up as coolness for the 21st century.