daanbolder Reviews

King Kong (2005)

editor needed quick!

[5/10 · 17 December 2005]

OK, I'm a heavy smoker. After more than 2 hours my mind switches to a serious urge for nicotine unless something is really entertaining me. Although we can smoke everything we want in the Netherlands, there is a pretty strict no-smoking policy in cinema's. And even in 3+ hour movies we don't have a break! But still, I survived LOTR pretty well, so why not try the King-Kong-big-sit.

I was pretty familiar with the story & time-line. I already knew they are gonna take Kong back to the city. After a 2 hour adventure on the island the only thing I could think of was: "oooh, and they STILL have to go to the city...". The setting and the effects are amazing, but just like an amazing painting it's not gonna entertain me for hours. I've seen the ape, I knew the story and I was in serious need for my cigarette.

The funny thing is, you CAN actually go out and smoke a cigarette. Nothing important is gonna happen. When a scene starts, you can be sure you won't be late for the next scene if you go out for a cigarette. I'm not saying the movie was boring, it's just too much showing the possibilities of cgi & beautiful settings. The story is obviously not Jacksons priority in this movie.

Jackson showed us he isn't the "artist" people suggest he is. Give the man a bag of millions, a group of the best cgi-effect people and you get King Kong. Too bad there wasn't any money left for a decent editor. The movie didn't surprise me, didn't contain anything new and was just a display what is possible with unlimited finance. The only creativity were the cgi-creatures. (It's actually an animated movie, roger rabbit style) Jackson, cut a movie like this to a maximum of 2 hours, and it WILL be entertaining. Leave the ape on the Island, or shoot him of the tower in less then 30 minutes PLEASE !

Deconstructing Harry (1997)

One of his better movies, where you can see the possibilities of true cinema

[19 May 2004]

I'm sure some people wouldn't agree with me, but this movie is a great piece of art on film. Like Hitchcock, Coppola, and others, Woody Allen is a real cinema artist. He makes great use of the possibilities of cinema without losing himself in expensive special effects.

Of course cinema is a medium to create a near-perfect realism on a fictional story. But it can also be an artistic medium. Playing with the possibilities. An example in this film is Robin Williams. A men who is 'out of focus'.

The story is, like most films, not very original. A character that struggles with his personality and social life. But unlike most movies, you can see an artist made this film. It's a Woody Allen creation. His own style, his own characters, his own humor. Not a collection of an expensive scriptwriter with an expensive director, an expensive special effects team , an expensive director of photography etc. to make a total non-personal creation for the big public. Of course the whole crew did a perfect job, but it is surely a Woody Allen film!

A great movie with a nice plot. Some nice switching in timeline and fiction / reality (for the story that is) makes it more interesting then the story really is. Also the jumpcuts, the camera movement, the cast and the humor are making this film a must see! Even if you are not a Woody Allen fan you will like this movie. If you are a fan of big blockbuster movies (standard Hollywood confention movies) this movie is a must see as well! Not only to see the real art of cinema (something different then perfect special effects) but also just for a nice evening and some good humor.