So Winship and I pulled out the second bi-annual WinCrabb film festival this past weekend. It didn't have as many movies as this past summers, but we thought that we got some good quality in. The main events are generally two-fold with some filler. Generally we see a big box office flick and a movie that ends the night that we can drink to.
The big movie this year was King Kong. Overall, I would have to say that I really, really enjoyed it. Jackson continues to be one of my favorite directors simply because his passion for what he is working on shows through. It also doesn't hurt that he is choosing some of the best material to work from that he could. I won't go to far into what all the reviewer have said, but here is my 2 cents. Kong is awesome. Naomi Watts deserves consideration for an Oscar and is a leading beautiful lady like classic women of film. The effects were second to none. Serkis's screen time was well deserved and made me very happy. His work as Kong made me happier. Both Adrian Brody and Jack Black were miscast, but managed not to botch the movie. And in the end, it was a bit long. Good movie though and well worth seeing on the big screen for Kong, Watts and Jackson's passion.
The filler movie was Batman Begins. What a promising start of a franchise. If only they can keep the great actors and kick a scripts, I could be woo'ed back to being a DC comic fan.
The drinking movie was Station Agent. It is a great little film that doesn't preach or really even try to get a point across other than that relationships are rough, but worth it. The movie went great with gin-based drinks.
Overall good time was had. Who knows what we'll watch in the summer.
Posted by crabby at December 21, 2005 07:57 PM | TrackBackI'd have to say you're wrong on half of your points about kong. Watts is good, but no oscar, never for these type of movies. Brody wasn't miscast he's only been in a handful of movies, you just don't like his nose, I say this because that is what you said to me. So to say he is miscast is a biased statement, I think he was the perfect anti-hero, the guy who acts heroically for the first time in his life. He writes the love stories and for the first time has to live one. I don't think that element was as flushed out as it was supposed to be but the movie was long enough as it was so they did what they could, in fact I know they cut parts of that out for time sake. Black was a perfect cast in my mind. He hit the nail on the head and I believed I had you convinced as such on the phone so not sure why you're recanting. There is only one person that might be more perfect for that role... Josiah Q. Roe, who in the end might be the same person as Jack Black, come to think of it I've never seen the two of them in the same room together. So if you intend to make outlandish and false statements that Jack Black was miscast please back them up, otherwise your argument is as strait as Adrian Brody's nose.
Recap the Score
I'll give you Naomi, she's good, captures the old sultry hollywood actress thing. No oscar however, consideration? Sure but Bonny Hunt will probably be considered for Cheaper By the Dozen 2. No, no oscar not from this flick. However I concede the Point, Crabby 1 Holton 0.
Jackson... This is an obvious observation and I whole heartedly agree so I say its a wash. Crabby still 1, Holton 0.
Effects: Well I'd have to agree, though I thought the Dinosaurs were weak. The Trex battle was good, but drawn out and way to long. In my mind Jackson went overboard with all the prehistoric stuff, it was good to great (bugs were amazing) but too much. I award myself a point... Crabb 1 Holton 1.
Serkis was good, not much lines though. I give him the point for his face time and making the talk show curcuit. Crabb 1 Holton 1 Serkis 1.
Brody: You're biased, I dock you a point on this one. Crabb 0 Holton 1... Serkis still 1.
Black: this you're just wrong, Brody you were just biased. If you could name me one person who would've been better... I'll give you a point. But until then, you lose...
Crabb 0 Holton 2 Serkis 1.
DC comics: Batman a plus, however Superman... I'm preparing my thumb for the downwards position. I'm not a fan of soap opera actors. Unless it has Christopher Reeve, Gene Hackman, or Richard Pryor in a Superman movie I'm not interested.
Also, DC I think is limited to two strong characters, Batman and Superman. Everyone else they have... sort of fodder. Think about how easily Doomsday dispenced of every superhero DC threw at him.
Its also funny to see how Marvel and DC copy off each other.
But in the end the strength of Xmen and Spidey... and Hulk (not the movie) sways me to give the title to Marvel. Superman would have to come out and be the best movie in history to make me declare DC better than marvel, this coming from a kid who grew up a DC guy. I've just come to see that the themes that Marvel incorporates into the comics are so much better than DC. Spidey deals with his dorkdom, and xmen deal with racism. While Superman deals with how not to mis-use his Xray vision and batman deals with how to better spend his millions.
Posted by: holton at December 27, 2005 11:01 PM